Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HAFTAROT mnttDH
T H E JPS T O R A H COMMENTARY
GENERAL EDITOR NahunM. Sama
LITERARY EDITOR ChaimFotok
1 THE JEWISH
PHILADELPHIA
PUBLICATION
2002 / 5 762
SOCIETY
Commentary © 2002 byMichael Fishbane
English translation ofthe TANAKH1962,1985,1989,1999 by Thejewish Publication Society
Masoretic Hebrew text, Codex Leningrad B19A, taken from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) ©
1967/77,1983, by the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart
02 03 04 05 06 0708 09 10 10 9 8 76 54 3 2 1
2002000303
and
•nna^ x m n n x n n
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XV
OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK Xvii
INTRODUCTION x i x
ABBREVIATIONS AND OTHER CONVENTIONS XXXV
T H E COMMENTARY TO T H E H A F T A R O T
GENESIS N^WM
VII
Va-yiggash 51 EZEKIEL 37:15-25
EXODUS N W
mpo 97
mpo 102
LEVITICUS XNP^L
CONTENTS viii
Shemini Ta^ 116 ASHKENAZIM 2 SAMUEL 6:1-7:17
(nwip-omwinfynwip 135
}
Emor "IBN 139 EZEKIEL 44:15-31
NUMBERS -Q1D3
onro 182
mm 186
ix CONTENTS
DEUTERONOMY D'131
•pnnxi 201
ISAIAH 49:14-51:3
'Ekev npy 205
ISAIAH 54:11-55:5
Re'eh 209
ISAIAH 51:12-52:12
Shofetim D'ttDW 211
ISAIAH 54:1-10
Ki Tetze' X^n ^ 215
ISAIAH 60:1-22
Ki Tavo' Xnn ^ 217
Nitzavim (Nitzavim-Va-yelekh) ISAIAH 61:10-63:9
ClVn"^^^^] 220
irmn 225
ix CONTENTS
Shabbat ha-Gadol ^ran nn^ 257 MALACHI 3:4-24
ix CONTENTS
First Day ofPassover JOSHUA 5:2-6:1; 6:27
noD bw ^ or 303
noD bw or 310
noD bw T E W or 311
nwm ^ or 315
ix CONTENTS
O V E R V I E W OF B I B L I C A L B O O K S EXCERPTED
IN T H E H A F T A R O T C Y C L E
ix CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As I finish this work of many years, I first give thanks to God, El Hey ha-'Olamim, the source of
all life, for the strength and vigor to complete this large project to the best of my abilities.
It is then with much love and gratitude that I give special thanks to you, Mona, my dearest
friend and companion for a lifetime, for your love and kindness and unfailing involvement in
all aspects of this labor, both theoretical and practical. You helped clarify ideas and issues as they
arose, you provided editoriai judgment and ciarity whenever asked, and you unstintingiy gave
me the time to write and revise this commentary again and again, with unflagging support. And
so, for these reasons and more this book is dedicated to you. The biessings of my life include
our two sons, Eitan and Elisha, who have set forth on the paths of Torah and scholarship, each
one in his own way. You are my three favorite readers.
It is also a particular pleasure and blessing to anticipate that my mother, Bernice Fishbane,
will receive this volume in physical health and clarity of mind and spirit, and I hope that it
adds to her joy and knowledge of Torah for many years to come. This commentary expresses
my loving thankfulness for her model of silent resourcefulness and for the gift of life, given me
together with my late father, Philip Fishbane. In this context, I happily add further words of
thanks to my parents-in-law, Herman and Janet DeKoven, who have supported me and this
project in many caring ways over the years. May they also continue to find in Torah sustenance
and new meaning.
From its inception, many other individuals have had a share in helping to determine the
nature and shape of the task. I first thank my teacher and friend, Nahum Sarna, then editor-in-
chief of The Jewish Publication Society's Bible Commentary Project, for inviting me to write
this commentary many years ago, when its form and scope were thought to be much different.
With a youthful and unrealistic boldness I accepted the intellectual and religious challenge of
such a project, motivated by a desire to give something of my work and abilities to the Jewish
people—and thus to realize in some small measure the ideal of knowledge as service. Commit-
ment to this goal has stayed my course as the work mounted, and as I made my way through
what seemed like virtually all the traditional and critical commentaries on the subject, from
antiquity to the present.
About a decade ago, I was encouraged to widen the scope of the commentary by an old
friend, Michael Monson, past executive vice president of The Jewish Publication Society, and I
am very grateful for that support. In recent years, I have had the benefit of the involvement of
Ellen Frankel, CEO and editor-in-chief of JPS. Her active engagement and good counsel have
shown her to be a faithful editor and friend. JPS publishing director Carol Hupping merits special
praise. She has given beyond measure of her goodwill and expertise and has kept this complex
project on course. She has my sincere thanks. My gratitude also goes to Debra Hirsch Corman
for her skill as a copyeditor; the present work has benefited greatly from her expert hand and fine
suggestions. I also wish to extend thanks to David E.S. Stein of the JPS staff for preparing the
"Overview of This Book" and the back matter, and for his keen editorial eye during proofreading.
My successive interactions with him have only increased my admiration for his exacting skills;
the Masoretic tradition is alive and well in his hands.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Finally, it is my pleasure to add words of appreciation to various students who, over the years,
read portions of the manuscript in draft form and provided helpful observations and responses.
They probably would not recognize the work at this stage, since it has gone through so many
changes and reformulations since then; nevertheless, their active interest is gratefully acknow-
ledged. Particular thanks to Jonathan Schofer, Benjamin Sommer, and Elsie Stern. In the final
stages, I was assisted by my students Elliot Cosgrove, Deborah Green, and especially Laura Lieber,
who has also prepared a study guide to enhance the use of this work. Many thanks.
Michael Fishbane
Shabba-t Va-yehi, 5762
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvi
OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK
Traditionally when studying sacred Jewish texts, knowledge arises out of a series of
encounters; the understanding of a subject grows by approaching it over time, again
and again, from many directions. Correspondingly, this book is complex. It pulls
together a wide range of aspects of the haftarah as a subject of study. That is so partly
because those aspects overlap and interlock (like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle). Moreover,
this book is intended for a disparate audience of readers, each of whom will forge a
unique path into the material. To assist readers in charting their own explorations,
the following table of topics may serve as a guide.
GENERAL ORIENTATION
A haftarah as an exemplar of the prophetic book from "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted
which it was drawn in the Haftarot Cycle"
Which (and how many) haftarot are taken from each Introduction; Index of Biblical Pas-
prophet or biblical book sages
continued
xvn
TOPIC W H E R E ADDRESSED
THE HAFTARAH ON ITS OWN TERMS
A haftarah's basic characteristics as a document—its Each haftarah's introduction (first
authorship, setting, and overall character part)
A haftarah's literary structure, theme words, rhetoric, Each haftarah's introduction (outline;
and content; how these elements interact to yield the Content and Meaning)
concerns of the passage, understood on its own terms
H o w the ancient Sages implicitly altered the meaning Each haftarah's introduction (Content
of biblical texts (by excerpting, or by collecting passages and Meaning); or comments (on the
into an anthology) when creating this haftarah—a new opening or closing words of the
literary work of art haftarah)
Hebrew text itself as it has come down to us (masomh The footnotes to the Hebrew text;
and "lower criticism"); lexical or other difficulties in Guide to Hebrew Footnotes; and
establishing what each haftarah text actually says the comments on pertinent words or
phrases (in Comments)
H o w commentators have addressed problems in es- The comments on pertinent words or
tablishing the plain sense of the text; theological and phrases (in Comments)
historical meaning, as dependent upon the competing
solutions to the textual problems
Meaning of terms and phrases that don't translate easily The translators' notes (in Com-
because they differ radically from those in contemporary ments)
usage
Meaning of ancient Near Eastern practices and conven- The comments on pertinent words or
tions mentioned in the haftarah phrases (in Comments)
Translation alternatives for a particular word or phrase, The comments on pertinent words or
and the traditions of interpretation that underlie strate- phrases (in Comments)
gies of translation
Meaning of a featured idea, belief, or motif, as treated The comments on pertinent words or
elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible phrases (in Comments)
The haftarot (sg., haftarah) are the prophetic selections recited publicly on Sabbaths, festivals, and
certain fast days after the required portion from the Torah (Pentateuch; Five Books of Moses).
These communal readings developed as a component of classical Judaism—in both form and
function. First and foremost, they are one of the three basic features of the ancient institution of
the synagogue, wherein the sacred Scriptures were read aloud and interpreted. Primary among
these features is the recitation of the Torah in a continuous sequence, from beginning to end dur-
ing a fixed cycle, interrupted only when a holiday (or the intermediate festival week) falls on the
Sabbath. Next in importance is a recitation from the prophetic literature, selected to complement
the Torah reading in one way or another or to highlight the theme of a specific ritual occasion.
For this reason, these prophetic readings are discontinuous and selective. And finally, the two
recitations from Scripture were enhanced by a demshah, or homily, that variously interpreted the
readings in the light of tradition, theology, or historical circumstance.
The foregoing triad (Torah, prophecy, and homily) represents three levels of authority in Juda-
ism and three modes of religious instruction. Of these, the Torah is the most important—being
divine revelation and the teaching of Moses, the foremost of the prophets, with whom we are
told God spoke directly and not in any mediated fashion. Scripture states that the Lord spoke to
Aaron and Miriam, saying, "Hear these My words: When a prophet of the LORD arises among
you, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my
servant Moses; he is trusted [ne'ema-n] throughout My household. With him I speak mouth to
mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the L O R D " (Num. 12:6-8).
According to later rabbinic tradition, this difference between the divine revelations to Moses and
those granted other prophets was somewhat qualified—so that the distinction was not between
a direct or indirect encounter with God, which seemed much too stark and bold, but between
two modes of refraction: Moses saw God clearly, through a shining mirror ('ispeklarM' me'irah),
whereas all the others perceived Him through a glass darkly, as in an unclear or unpolished mir-
ror (cf. B. Yevamot 49b). 1
The more mediated revelation of God to the prophets does not diminish the authority of their
message, since this was also recited through divine inspiration. Nevertheless, by making such a
formal distinction, the ancient Sages differentiated between the primary teachings of Moses—the
Decalogue and the Law—and the secondary teachings of the prophets, whose purpose was to
exhort the people to return in faithfulness to the covenant or to announce the consequences of
sin and the future fate of the people. The synagogue preacher could see his task as explicating
the one or the other (the teachings of Moses or the prophets), or both, on those occasions when
God's message was recited before the congregation.
The da-rsha-n (interpreter) thus added his human words of interpretation to the divine ones
received in order to make their ongoing relevance and significance clear and immediate. Hence,
even though he spoke on behalf of Moses and the prophets, the da-rsha-n's authority came from
the class of Sages and their role as mediators of the divine word. In the synagogue, as in the
study hall, their self-appointed task was to make Scripture a living word for the people. For
these reasons, the Sages also saw themselves as the heirs of prophecy ("Since the day when
the Temple was destroyed, prophecy has been taken from the prophets and given to the Sage"
[B. Megillah 17b]). As teachers in the present, the Sages thus gave institutional stability to the
ancient words of Moses and consoled their community with the future hopes and promises of
the prophets of Israel.2
INTRODUCTION xxii
Public /Recitation ofthe Tomh
Evidence for the earliest recitation of the Torah at communal gatherings is scanty and often
obscure. Iwo biblical passages are of note. The first is Deut. 31:10-13. Here Moses instructs
the priests, into whose keeping he has given a written copy of "this Teaching" (ha-tomh ha-zo't:,
namely, the Book ofDeuteronomy), to "read" it "aloud in the presence of all Israel," "every se-
venth year," when they come before the Lord during the pilgrimage Feast of Booths (Sukkot).
As this occasion also appears to coincide with the sabbatical year of debt remission (cf. Deut.
15:1), 3 the technical dating of the gathering mi-ketz sheva' shanim would originally seem to have
meant "at the beginning" or "onset" of "every seventh year" (ketz having the special sense of
"topmost"; cf. 1 Kings 12:31). 4 The purpose of this septennial recitation was to inculcate both
reverence for and observance of the precepts of the Torah in the entire community (Deut. 31:
12-13). We may assume that the event was something of a covenant renewal ceremony, replicat-
ing the event outlined in Deut. 29:9-14. On the basis of Moses' injunction to "Gather \hak-hel\
the people" together to hear the Law (Deut. 31:12), this occasion has been known traditionally
as the mitzvah ofhak-hel. However, we shall see that the early Sages construed the event and its
date quite differently.
The other reference to an occasion of public Torah recitation in Scripture is found in Nehe-
miah 8. It is reported there that Ezra the scribe, having recently returned to the Land of Israel
from Babylonia, gathered the people on the first day of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah) and
presented the "scroll of the Teaching [tomt] of Moses" (Neh. 8:1) before the assembled people.
The event is of interest for several reasons. First, we have a public reading lasting from dawn to
midday, with Ezra standing upon a wooden platform surrounded by various Levites. Second, when
the scroll was opened, Ezra first blessed "the LORD, the great God," and the people responded
"Amen, Amen," with hands upraised, and then bowed down (v. 6). And third, the recitation
from the scroll was accompanied by the Levites' providing meaning to the reading—presum-
ably through various forms of clarification and explication (v. 8). Rabbinic tradition located
references to the Aramaic vernacular translation (Targum) in this procedure, as well as the fixing
of the cantillation tradition to facilitate comprehension (B. Megillah 3a). 5 However, from the
ensuing report (in Neh. 8:13-18) that a smaller group gathered on the next day to understand
the Torah and then read from the laws of the Feast of Booths and enacted them in a distinctive
way, it may be inferred that a certain amount of interpretation of the text was involved. 6 In this
regard, we may even infer from the fact that the public recitation of the Torah occurred both
at the beginning of the year and during all seven days of the Sukkot festival (Neh. 8:18) that
Ezra and his colleagues were enacting the commandment of hak-hel according to their under-
standing of the Deuteronomic prescription. At any rate, it is clear from the overall account that
this assembly of reading and understanding, with the aid of official levitical teachers, continues a
practice that must go back to the exile—if not earlier. The reference to the scroll of the Teaching
of Moses does not specify whether only the Book of Deuteronomy or the entire Torah was read
from morning to noon, but the indication (from Neh. 9:15) that laws like those found in Lev.
23:25-27 for celebrating the Feast ofBooths were also examined suggests that the community
was instructed from a scroll larger than the Book ofDeuteronomy or from traditions somewhat
different from those found there.
According to old traditions preserved in Philo, losephus, the New Testament, and the Mishnah,
the weekly readings from the Torah are ascribed to Moses; 7 whereas the recitation of a Torah
portion on Monday and Thursday morning and on Sabbath afternoon is considered to be one of
the ten takkanot (or legal innovations) instituted by Ezra. 8 From the biblical record, as we have
seen, there is no confirming evidence for either of these two latter practices.
The earliest evidence for a continuous reading cycle is found in the Mishnah, where we are
explicitly told that on the four special Sabbaths between the first of Adar and the first ofNisan,
the regular Sabbath reading is interrupted (mafsikin), and "on the fifth [Sabbath] one returns
to their [regular] sequence [hozrin li-kh-sidran]n (M. Megillah 3:4). Interruptions also occurred
INTRODUCTION xxii
when a feast or other special day fell on the Sabbath, and on all these occasions, a fixed number
of readings with requisite lengths was prescribed (M. Megillah 4:2). 9 We also learn that during
the Sabbath afternoon service and on Monday and Thursday morning, one was obliged to read
from the upcoming Sabbath portion, "according to its sequence; and [that these readings] are not
accounted [part of the total]." That is, on a given Sabbath morning, the whole fixed portion is
read, and one does not deduct the selections read in anticipation of it (during the prior Sabbath
afternoon reading or on Monday and Thursday; thus, the portion recited on the Sabbath is always
the full portion). By contrast, however, the Jerusalem Talmud records an anonymous opinion of
"some" who read continuously from the prior Sabbath afternoon to the weekly Sabbath portion,
so that the scriptural readings were cumulative and the recitation for the Sabbath day continued
from the point where the three prior incremental readings of the portion left off. This appears to
be the position rejected in our Mishnah. In the discussion found in the Babylonian Talmud, the
accepted practice is attributed to Rabbi Judah and the rejected one to Rabbi Meir. 10
From the preceding account, we can see that a continuous cycle of Torah readings (with
many specifically designated ones) was in practice in the Land of Israel near the beginning of
our era—possibly already in the first century c.E. But we also observe that customs varied with
respect to the meaning of this continuity, with some Sages holding the position that continuity
meant reading portions from the Torah continuously each Sabbath morning (with the interven-
ing readings on Sabbath afternoons and the market days of Monday and Thursday being merely
anticipations of the next Sabbath morning portion); whereas others were of the opinion and
practice that a continuous reading was an incremental reading over the course of the week, with
each reading continuing where the last stopped (for a total of four public readings each week).
Far more complicated was the matter of how the continuous recitation should be subdivided,
thereby determining when the cycle of readings from the entire Torah would be completed.
If one reads twenty-one verses per portion, as formulated in M. Megillah 4:2 (seven readers,
three verses each), it would take about five and a half years to complete the Torah. This flatly
contradicts the (Babylonian) tradition that "Westerners [i. e., Jews in the Land of Israel] finish
the Torah in three years" (B. Megillah 29b), as well as the later gaonic statement that one of the
differences in religious practice between the communities of Babylonia and the Land of Israel
was that the "Easterners [i. e., Jews in Babylonia] celebrate Simhat Torah [at the end of their
reading cycle] every year, [whereas] residents of the Land of Israel [do so] every three and a
half years." 11 Among this diverse evidence, it is interesting to note that if one takes the custom
given in M. Ta'anit 4:3 as a norm, whereby the first portion (or seder) of Genesis (1:1-2:3) was
thirty-four verses, it would have taken as many as 172 Sabbaths to complete the entire reading
(taking into consideration the supplements due to festivals, Hanukkah, New Moons, and the
four special Sabbaths)— or a bit more than three and a half years. Such an allocation accords
with the gaonic tradition noted above. 12
It is thus abundantly clear that the so-called Triennial Cycle of Torah readings in the Land of
Israel is a generalized notion and does not accord with all the evidence. Nevertheless, scholars
have attempted to reconstruct just such a cycle of readings—using all available evidence for ancient
Palestinian practices,13 particularly as preserved in lists of ancient and medieval practices, 14 in
the subdivisions of ancient Palestinian midrashic collections (like Genesis Rabbah), 15 and in the
anthologies of ancient synagogue hymns (piyyutim) by such poets as R. Yannai and R. Eliezer
be-Rabbi Kallir.16 But the overall results have been contradictory and confusing, since quite apart
from the inner variations of particular Sabbath portions, the lists of reading portions {sedarim)
number such diverse cycles as 141, 154, and 167. 17 This has led to the common conclusion that
practices varied widely in the Land of Israel and that no unified practice is evident. 18 Bits of
evidence have even led others to conclude that there was also an Annual Cycle reading tradition
in this mix; 19 but most scholars regard the one-year cycle of fifty-three or fifty-four portions
(pa-mshiyyot) as a derivative Babylonian practice, which took dominance in the Jewish world after
the transfer of the hegemony of the Babylonian academy to Spain in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries c.E., and especially because of the authoritative backing of Maimonides. In this regard,
INTRODUCTION xxii
it is noteworthy that a significant interrelationship between the two cycles exists; in fact, forty-
three of the fifty-four portions of the Annual Cycle are identical (in title and beginning, though
not in length) with those of the so-called Triennial Cycle.20
An old opinion of Leopold Zunz tried to give coherence to the evidence by observing
that two three-and-a-half-year reading cycles would have concluded on the sabbatical year of
release.21 His brief observation has now been analytically confirmed on the basis of computa-
tions of the possible variations (high and low) of Sabbath portions during a seven-year period,
taking into account various interrupting festival days, New Moons, the special Sabbaths, and so
on. The result correlates with the preserved lists of 141, 154, and 167 Sabbath portions, with
these latter representing the low, middle, and high number of portions that might be projected,
given the complications that could arise in any one annual cycle of reading. The conclusion thus
imposes itself that the Sages sought to regulate the readings over a septennial period and did so
by combining or expanding portions in each of the two reading cycles of such a period in order
to finish in seven years.22
It is reasonable to suppose, moreover, that the aforementioned Deuteronomic tradition
of hak-hel was the model for the later Palestinian Sages.23 However, it must be noted that this
required a different understanding of the operative phrase mi-ketz sheva' shanim (Deut. 30:11)
than the one suggested earlier. If a gathering or celebratory conclusion of different communities
would be held at the end of a double reading cycle (each extending for three years or more), this
could only mean that the event occurred "at the end of seven years"— not at the beginning; that
is, on the Feast of Booths occurring just after the completion of the septennial (double) cycle
(i. e., at the onset of the eighth year). Thus Moses' ancient injunction would have been applied by
the Rabbis on the basis of their reinterpretation of his words. According to late Second Temple
halakhah, the recitation was prescribed for the second day of Sukkot (M. Sotah 7:8; cf. the later
summary of Maimonides,.Mw^w^ Torah, Hilkhot Hagigah 3:1).
The determination of the various Sabbath portions was also the necessary prerequisite for
the selection of readings from the prophets as a haftarah—insofar as these were correlated with
the Torah portion by word, theme, or place in the liturgical cycle.
The Holy One, blessed be He, said [to Israel]. "In this world I show you mercy by means
of the shofar; just so, in the world to come I shall show you mercy by means of the shofar
and draw near your redemption." Whence [do we know this]? From what was read on
the topic in the Prophet \mi-mah she-kar'u be-'inyan ba-navi'Y- "Blow a horn [shofar] in
Zion, sound an alarm [hari'u] on My holy mount! [ . . . ] For the day of the L O R D has
come, it is close" (Joel 2:1). 41
The verbal tally between the Torah reading (teru'ah) and the Prophetic reading (hari'u) aligns
the passages and marks a double interpretation: the shofar blasts marking the New Year is here
understood (in accord with a common tradition) to arouse divine mercy on behalf of Israel; and
this provides a transition to future hope, whereby the shofar blasts will inaugurate the advent of
divine redemption. The ensuing homily in Pesikta Rabbati 41 is also based upon Joel 2:1. It is
certain beyond doubt that this passage served as the haftarah in both cases, since in section 40
the preacher comments: "From what was read on the topic in the Prophet."
xxiii INTRODUCTION
Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 16:9 is the concluding section of a homily generated by Lev.
14:2, the second verse of theTorah portion in the Triennial Cycle beginning at Lev. 14:1 (the
seder of Metzora', dealing with leprous diseases; it also begins the weekly portion of the same
name, according to the Annual Cycle). This conclusion is a detailed and extensive interpretation
of Isa. 57:17-19. Significantly, this last passage, which refers to divine healing in the future, is
a haftarah marked by Yannai in his Kedushta} on this seder. As in the preceding case, so here as
well, the synagogue sermon mediates and explicates the link between the Torah instruction and
the prophetic hope.
The preceding examples also illustrate how the correlation between the Torah and haftarah
readings could be established on the verbal or thematic level—on the basis of verbal tallies and
topical relations. In rabbinic literature, the first type highlights a point of lexical similarity (de-
damei leih) between the two texts, whereas the second stresses issues of content (left cinyan).^2
The so-called Triennial Cycle as well as the Annual Cycle exhibit both features. This said, the
element of verbal relationships occurs primarily on regular Sabbaths, where the main concern is
the lesson of the Torah portion (e. g., "creation" in the portion of Bere'shit, which begins with
Gen. 1:1; or the "Flood" in the portion of Noah, which begins with Gen. 6:1). And the element
of thematic relationships appears primarily on special Sabbaths, where the main issue is the ritual
or religious topic of the day (e. g., "divine consolation" on Shabbat Nahamu, the first of seven
successive Sabbaths of consolation after the fast of Tisha b'Av, which begins with Isa. 40:1; or
"human repentance" on Shabbat Shuvah, the Sabbath that falls between Rosh Hashanah and
Yom Kippur, the ritual period officially known as the "Ten Days ofPenitence"). 43
The haftarot in the so-called Triennial Cycle exhibit some distinctive and noteworthy features.
First, the relatively brief portions usually establish a verbal tally right at the outset; and second,
this tally is usually marked by a shift to the eschatological or messianic level. Thus, the seder in
which Noah is told to "come out \tz&iy\ of the ark" (Gen. 8:15) is complemented by the haftarah
in which God instructs his prophetic servant to go the exiles and "to bring out [ l e - h o t z i t h e
prisoners from confinement" (Isa. 42:7). 4 4 The reading of the episode of the Tower of Babel,
which begins with the phrase "Everyone on earth had the same language [safah]" (Gen. 11:1)
and goes on to describe its diffusion, is complemented by the prophecy of hope in which God
promises a restoration of this division, "For then I will make the peoples pure of speech [safah],
so that they all invoke the L O R D by name and serve Him with one accord" (Zeph. 3 : 9 ) . 4 5
Moreover, an analysis of the distribution of the prophetic books used for haftarot in the
so-called Triennial Cycle shows that nearly half of these readings were taken from the Book of
Isaiah, and of these, roughly two-thirds were selected from chapters 40-66, which emphasize
national return to the homeland. This feature may be precisely the reason the Persians banned the
recitation of haftarot on Sabbath afternoon in Babylon, since we are informed that the scriptural
readings were taken from the Book of Isaiah. 46 In any event, it is also notable that comparatively
few of the prophetic readings in this cycle are taken from the Former Prophets (the Books of
loshua, ludges, 1 - 2 Samuel, and 1 - 2 Kings), which contain historical and archival material. 47
Clearly, the evidence of the haftarot shows a marked messianic emphasis in the old Palestinian
synagogue theology.
Thematic links between the Torah and Prophets in the tannaitic sources of the Land of Israel
appear, as noted above, in those instances where the Sabbath or another day commemorates a
special ritual or religious occasion. In this respect, the Mishnah mentions several days when a
special selection from the Torah is recited. These include the four Sabbaths between the first of
Adar and the first ofNisan (M. Megillah 3:4); the three pilgrimage festivals of Passover, Pentecost
(Shavuot, called Atzeret), and Tabernacles (Sukkot, called Hag); the holidays ofRosh Hashanah
and Yom Kippur (M. Megillah 3:5); as well as Hanukkah, Purim, and the New Moon (M. Megillah
3:6). An important ba-mita} (a tannaitic teaching not included in the Mishnah) preserved in the
Babylonian Talmud supplements this list with a catalogue of the corresponding haftarot, chosen
because they are like the occasion commemorated (B. Megillah 31a-b). 48 For example, on the
first special Sabbath, Shekalim, when theTorah portion refers to the donation of a half-shekel by
INTRODUCTION xxii
all the Israelites polled in the desert just prior to the construction of the Tabernacle, the prophetic
portion begins with 2 Kings 12:1, which describes the public donations given for the repair and
upkeep of the Temple in the time o f K i n g Jehoash. 49 Similarly, to correspond to the Torah por-
tion for the first day of Rosh Hashanah, which reports how Sarah's barrenness was remembered
by God and she was granted a son, the haftarah gives a report of Hannah's barrenness and how
God remembered her and gave her a son as well (1 Sam. l:lff.). 5 0 These and the other prophetic
readings in this talmudic list have been taken over into the Annual Cycle.
In addition, just as the old rabbinic tradition was discrete and restricted the public translation
of certain Torah passages into the vernacular (the Aramaic Targum) that it deemed improper
for popular knowledge (like Reuben's relationship with Bilhah [Gen. 35:22]), so also did it
rule that "the episodes of David and Amnon" (who each seduced a woman forbidden by law)
are "not read and not translated" (M. Megillah 4:10). Moreover, the Sages add that one may
not recite the throne or chariot vision of Ezekiel 1 as a prophetic portion (}ein maftirin be-mer-
kavah) —although R. Judah permits this practice; and R. Eleazar rules that one may not recite
"Proclaim Jerusalem's [abominations to her]" (Ezek. 16:2) as a prophetic lection. Of these
three passages, the episode of David and Amnon has remained a censored text for synagogue
recitation. Though the Sages sought to restrict the popular recitation of Ezekiel's mystical vi-
sion (undoubtedly because of its esoteric content and strict rabbinic limitations regarding its
study; cf. M. Hagigah 2:1), R. Judah permitted it, and his view is confirmed in the aforenoted
talmudic ba-mita\ where "The Chariot" is given as the haftarah for the first day of Shavuot—a
practice continued to the present day. Ezekiel 16:2ff., which provides graphic and lewd accounts
of Jerusalem and its sins, was recited in some communities, including the Yemenite rite, 51 appar-
ently influenced by the Targum, in which the various episodes are transformed into an allegory
of Israel's sacred history.
INTRODUCTION xxii
Indeed, the latter are not at all the dominant element in the haftarot taken from the Books
of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets and in many cases do not appear at all; moreover,
the percentages hardly change if one factors in the haftarot for the pilgrimage festivals. A high
proportion of the latter provide historical depictions, and this tallies with the relatively high
number of Sabbath haftarot taken from the Former Prophets (eight derive from the Books of
Joshua, Judges, and Samuel; and eleven from the Book of Kings). Similarly, three of the four
haftarot for special Sabbaths provide historical or archival material. In sum, the theme of na-
tional redemption and redemption is noticeably downplayed in the Annual Cycle—a point that
is even more obvious if we factor out the seven haftarot of consolation, which derive from the
old Palestinian rite. One wonders whether this distribution of emphasis reflects any significant
aspect ofjewish Diaspora consciousness in Babylon.
Viewed more thematically, we may observe that in addition to the interest in the national
future and the restoration of the people, the haftarot in the Annual Cycle reflect a strong interest
in historical parallels or symmetries, as detailed below.
First, on the national level: (1) the celebratory song of Moses after the crossing of the Red
Sea (Exodus 15) in the portion of Be-shallah is balanced in the haftarah by Deborah's song of
victory in the time of the Judges (Judg. 4:4-5:31 for Ashkenazim; 5:1-31 for Sephardim); (2)
the apostasy with the Golden Calf (Exodus 32) in Ki Tissa' is balanced in the haftarah by the
apostasy of the people in the time of Elijah (1 Kings 18:1-39 for Ashkenazim; 18:20-39 for
Sephardim); (3) the account of the celebration of the paschal meal in Egypt (Exod. 12:12-51),
recited as a special Torah reading on the first day of Passover, is balanced in the haftarah by the
celebration of the first paschal offering in the land of Canaan (Josh. 5:2-6:1, 27); and (4) the
account of the first reconnoitering of the Land by the spies and their failure (Numbers 14), found
in the portion of Shelah-Lekha, is balanced in the haftarah by the second wave of spies and their
successful collusion with Rahab in Jericho (Josh. 2:1-24).
Second, on the personal level: (1) the ageing of Abraham and the gifts of inheritance before
death, found in the portion of Hayyei Sarah (Gen. 25:5-8), is paralleled in the haftarah by the
ageing ofDavid and the transfer of royalty before his death (1 Kings 1:1-31); (2) the dream and
awakening of Pharaoh and the recognition that Joseph has divine wisdom in Mikketz (Genesis 41,
esp. w. 33, 38) are paralleled in the haftarah by the dream and awakening of Solomon at Gibeon
and the recognition that he has divine wisdom (1 Kings 3:15-4:1, esp. 3:15,28); (3) the final song
of Moses, depicting divine favors to the people, found in Ha'azinu (Deuteronomy 32), is paralleled
in the haftarah by the final song of David, in which he thanks God for all his victories (2 Sam.
22:1-51); and (4) the account ofMoses' death, with the reference to the transfer ofleadership to
Joshua in the portion Ve-zo't Ha-berakhah (especially Deut. 34), is paralleled in the haftarah for
Simhat Torah by the account ofMoses' death and the statement that God will be with Joshua just
as he was with Moses (Josh. 1:1-18 for Ashkenazim; 1:1-9 for Sephardim; see especially v. 5).
Third, on an institutional level: (1) the preparations and depictions of the building of the
Tabernacle in the Torah portions of Terumah (Exod. 25:1-27:19), Va-Yak-hel (Exod. 35:1-38:
20), and Pekudei (Exod. 38:21-40:38), and in the added Torah reading for the special Sabbath
of Shekalim (Exod. 30:11-16), are complemented by haftarot that give related depictions of the
Temple—in 1 Kings 5:26-6:13, 1 Kings 7:40-50 (Ashkenazim) or 7:13-26 (Sephardim), 1
Kings 7:51-8:21 (Ashkenazim) or 7:40-50 (Sephardim), and 2 Kings 12:1-17 (Ashkenazim)
or 11:17-12:17 (Sephardim), respectively; (2) the account of the altar for the priests in the
Tabernacle found in the portion of Tetzaweh (Exodus 27:1-8) and its purification (29:6-7)
is complemented in the haftarah by references to the altar for the new (postexilic) Temple and
its purification (Ezek. 43:10-27); (3) the regulations of the personal status and couture of the
priests in the wilderness Tabernacle described in the portion of 'Emor (Lev. 21:1-15, especially)
are complemented in the haftarah by regulations of the same order for the postexilic priesthood
(Ezek. 44:15-31); and (4) the account of lighting the lamps in the desert Tabernacle and the
purification of the Levites found in the portion ofBe-ha'alotekha (Num. 8:1-22, especially), is
complemented in the haftarah by a figurative use of the image of lamps and the purification of
the High Priest in the postexilic Temple (Zech. 2:14-4:7).
xxvii INTRODUCTION
It is clear from these examples (and many others) that a dominant concern in the haftarot of
the Annual Cycle is to establish historical symmetries between events, persons, or institutions
and thus to show various types of continuities and correlations within Scripture. 56 These diverse
correlations also indicate a certain cast of mind or concern behind the selection—what appears to
be a certain typological reading of sacred history. It may be added that, in this process, haftarot
were chosen that do not have the personal voice of a prophet, but the narrative voice of a histo-
rian or the archival tone of a catalogue. This is significant, for it indicates that the haftarah was
believed to instruct by means of comparison or analogy with the Torah portion. Moreover, the
relative absence of the prophet's voice also results in the virtual absence of the prophetic tone
of rebuke or criticism for personal or social evils— of commission or omission. 57 The haftarot
for Balak (Micah 5:6-6:8) or for Yom Kippur morning (Isa. 57:14-58:14) are thus exceptional
in this regard, together with the haftarot for the three Sabbaths of Admonition (ler. 1:1-2:3;
2:4-28 and 3:4 [Ashkenazim] or 2:4-28 and 4:1-2 [Sephardim]; and Isa. 1:1-27, respectively).
One cannot speak of any common literary style or feature among the haftarot; each reading
sculpts its discourse out of a larger literary context and establishes its own rhetorical emphases
and features. Frequently, in fact, the beginning or end of a haftarah selection interrupts a biblical
speech unit—with striking and new effects. The various literary and rhetorical forms are fully
discussed in the ensuing commentary, and there we shall observe patterns of symmetry, argu-
mentative dialectics, climactic emphases, and other features showing that the haftarot constitute
a distinct stage in the reception of ancient Israelite prophecy—a re-presentation and reuse of it
for the synagogue and its own ideals of religious instruction through Scripture.
For that religious community, the haftarah marked the "leaving off" ( , aftarta : ') or "comple-
tion" ('ashla-mta') of the official Torah service58 and is formally set off from it in several ways.
First, the haftarah service, so to speak, begins after the reading from the Torah portion has been
completed and a half-Kaddish (doxology) recited to mark a break between it and what follows.
And then, after the doxology, a nominal portion (three verses or so) from the end of the Torah
portion is repeated, and the haftarah is ritually recited. Blessings before and after that recitation
enhance its lesson and give it a sacred framework.
The blessing traditionally recited before the haftarah reads as follows:
Blessed are You, O L O R D our God, king of the universe, who chose good prophets, and
found their words acceptable, which were said in truth. Blessed are You, O L O R D , who
chooses the Torah, His servantMoses, His people Israel, and true andjustprophets. 5 9
The shift from the past choice of prophets in the first part to the ongoing choice of prophets in
the concluding eulogy underscores God's ongoing support for the prophets— who continue to
instruct the people, as does the Torah ofMoses.
After the completion of the haftarah, four blessings are then recited. The first of these shifts
the focus from the prophet's words to those of God—which are declared both reliable and ef-
fective. This blessing reads:
Blessed are You, O L O R D our God, king of the universe, rock of all the universes, righteous
throughout all the generations—who speaks and does, (and) who declares and fulfills: for
all His words are true and just. You are He, O L O R D our God, who is reliable, and whose
words are reliable, and not even one of your words shall return empty—for you are a reliable
and merciful king. Blessed are You, O L O R D , the God who is reliable in all His words.
The repetition of the phrase "true and just" in this part echoes and extend its usage in the first
blessing. There, the persons who speak acceptable words are deemed "true and just prophets";
here, on the other hand, the prophetic words are treated as very words of God, "for all His words
are true and just." 60 Hence all the teachings and promises are reliable, godly instruction. 61 Im-
bued with this assurance, the people of Israel has kept the ancient words of the prophets alive to
this very day through ritual recitation in the synagogue—and through their ongoing study and
INTRODUCTION xxviii
interpretation, in light of the strictures of philology and in faithfulness to the values of Scripture
and Jewish tradition.
INTRODUCTION xxii
been guided by theological or religious strategies that further complicate the issue, and the reader
is shown how the theological or historical meaning of the prophetic passage changes depending
upon the solution one adopts. This level of analysis also complements the first one by adding
information about the rhetoric of the piece or aspects of its thought or style not mentioned before.
But beyond this, there is a concern to extend the topics of thepeshat beyond the specific context of
the haftarah to the Hebrew Bible as a whole. The pedagogical purpose here is to widen the lens
of biblical literacy, in order to see both how a given idea or belief changes in different contexts
and how these various contexts may differ from that featured in the haftarah. In this way, the
rich tapestry and texture of biblical literature, thought, and theology are represented—and any
sense that "the Bible" is a monolithic whole, with one voice or theology, is implicitly challenged.
The phenomenon of Scripture as a multicontextual and multivalent anthology of teachings and
traditions is thus indicated in many ways.
3. The third level of this commentary is that of the demsh, or creative interpretation and
theology. Since antiquity, rabbinic midrashists and homilists have sought to understand the link
or relationship between xhcpa-mshah of the Torah and its corresponding haftarah—not solely as
an attempt to reconstruct the associations of the old liturgists who established these connections,
but as an impulse of creative religious inquiry (another meaning of demsh). I have tried to do
the same, being sensitive to literary connections, meanings, and views found in the voluminous
midrashic literature (or other rabbinic sources, as pertinent), but also by trying to discover new
correlations between the liturgical readings on the basis of my own insights and interests. The
result is a series of concise theological essays inspired by these diverse intertextual nexuses—a
mode of traditional midrash in keeping with my own spiritual and stylistic sensibilities. The
concern here again is to let the biblical texts speak—though now as a dialogue of voices within
the canon as a whole. My interest in this part of the commentary is thus to mediate a type of
theological intertextuality, and in so doing to demonstrate how an interpreter (ancient or modern)
may facilitate the interlocution of diverse scriptural sources.
I close with a final point and a plea. The point is that ludaism is a text culture, which has
been ever nurtured by study and interpretation. The interpreter and the text interpenetrate in
dynamic ways: the individual finding that the layers of his or her deepest self have been textual-
ized by study, so that the sacred texts provide a new language for ongoing life experience and
inspiration; whereas, in turn, the text reveals itself as marked by the accumulated readings of its
many seekers and learners. Every renewal of the self is likewise a renewal of the text—and every
deadening of human sensibility is a simultaneous deadening of the vitality of the text. Thus if
the biblical text is itself a shaping of the divine spirit by the human breath of Moses and the
prophets, we must repeatedly respond to the realization that its ancient and enduring truths now
speak through the spirit and breath of its latter-day interpreters.
My plea is related to this point. Martin Buber once said that the task of the translator is to
overcome the "leprosy of fluency"—that disease of the spirit whereby one presumes to know from
the outset what one is reading and therefore blithely reads past the text and its distinctive meaning.
The effective translator must therefore reformulate the words of the text so as to produce a new
encounter with its language and thus facilitate a new hearing and understanding. I would add that
the spiritual task of the commentator is likewise to mediate and influence the pace of reading, so
that the reader can be addressed anew by the innate power of the text. The pace of modern tech-
nology and information retrieval interrupts this vital task. To hear the voice of ancient Scriptures,
the rhythm of reading must therefore be restored to the rhythm of breathing—to the cadence of
the words and speech patterns that characterize the sacred text. Only then may one encounter each
literary unit with his or her life-breath and begin to read with a heightened alertness to nuance and
significance; and only then may the modern idolization of technique and fact also be challenged,
and the ancient text retrieved with all its inherent vitality and force. The commentator must try
to facilitate this process, through carefully chosen explanations and annotations; but the work and
readiness of the reader are also much required—every step of the way.
INTRODUCTION xxii
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
1. The terms 'ispiklaria'metzuhtzehet (a polished 12. See the determination made by Ben-Zion
mirror) and melukhlekhet (murky) occur in Lev. R. Wacholder, in his "Prolegomenon" to the reprint
1:12; cf. in the edition of Mordecai Margulies (Jeru- of Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in
salem: WahrmannBooks, 1972), 1:31. A the Old Synagogue (1940; reprint, New York: Ktav,
2. On the complicated question of the so-called 1971), l:xviii, xxi. A
end of prophecy after Haggai, Zechariah, and Mala- 13. See the innovative and influential early re-
chi, see the important study of Ephraim E. Urbach, searches of Adolf Buchler, "The Reading of the Law
"Matai Paskah Nevu'ah," Tarbiz 17 (1946): 1-11; and the Prophets in a Triennial Cycle,"/jQR, n. s., 5
and the recent reconsideration and synthesis of (1893), especially 420-68. <
positions in Benjamin D. Sommer, "Did Prophecy 14. Note, for example, the various lists col-
Cease? Evaluating a Reevaluation,"/BZ 115 (1996): lected by Wacholder, in his appendices to the "Pro-
31-47. And see also Nahum N. Glatzer, "A Study of legomenon." A
the Talmudic Interpretation of Prophecy," Review of 15. This has been established by the pioneering
Religion 10 (1945-46): 115-37. <
and important researches of Julius Theodor, "Die
3. The same Hebrew expression (mi-ketz) occurs Midraschim zum Pentateuch und der dreijarige
here. Targ. Onk. and old rabbinic tradition (Sif. Deut. palastinensische Cyclus," Monatschrift fur die Ge-
I l l ) already assume thatketz means "end"; but this is schichte und Wissenschaft desludenthums 34 (1885):
hard to square with the explicit statement in the law 351— 66, 405-21, 454-67; 35 (1886): 212-18,
itself (v. 9) that the onset of the seventh year is antici- 252-65, 299-313, 406-15, 443-59, 558-64; 36
pated. LXX also understands Deut. 15:1 as indicating (1887): 35-48, 357-61. <
the arrival of the seventh year (di'hepta eton). Cf. also
the discussion of Samuel R. 'Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC 16. For Yannai, see Zvi M. Rabinovitz, Mahzor
(Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1895), 174. NJPS silently PiyyuteiR. Yannaila-Torah ve-la-Mo'adim (Jerusalem:
ignores the problem by translating mi-ketz as "every" Mosad Bialik; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press,
(this is also the view of Saadiah Gaon). A variant 1987), 1-2. <
expression is mi-ketzeh in Deut. 14:28. A 17. See now the discussion and synoptic pre-
sentation of the lists in Yissachar Yo'el, "Keter H '
4. This understanding of the plain sense was also
argued by Ibn Ezra here and elsewhere (but see Ram- 'Alafim ve-'Esrim li-vriyat ha-'Olam," I&ryat Sefer 38
ban's attempt at a grammatical as well as traditional (1963): 126-32. <
rebuttal). Moreover, it is impossible to think of the 18. So the summation of Joseph Heinemann,
gathering on the fifteenth of the seventh month as "The Triennial Lectionary Cycle,"i7S 19 (1968):
the "end" of the year. Driver, Deuteronomy, 335, also 41-48. <
understand Deut. 30:10 like 15:1; i. e., atthe begin- 19. See Ezra Fleischer, "Keriyah Had-Shenatit
ning of the year (see above, n.3). A ve-Tlat-Shenatit ba-Torah be-Veit ha-Kenesset ha-
5. For an analysis of the terms in Neh. 8:8, see Kadum," Tarbiz 61 (1992): 25-43, among many
my Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: other of his researches on the subject. A
Clarendon Press, 1985), 108-9. < 20. See Wacholder, "Prolegomenon," xxiii, and
6. See my discussion, ibid., 109-12. A appendix 1. A
7. See, respectively, Philo,.Dg OpificioMundi 128; 21. See Yom Tov Lipmann Zunz, Ha-Derashot
Josephus, ContmApionen, 2:175; Acts 15:21; and be-Yisra'el ve-Hishtalshelutan ha-Historit, ed. Hanoch
M.Meg. 3:1. < Albeck (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1975), 2. <
8. See J. Meg. 1:3, 70b; B. BK 72a. < 22. For the foregoing theory and proof, see Shelo-
9. The numbers given are ideal. For example, the moh Na'eh, "Sidrei Keri'at ha-Torah be-'Eretz-Yisra'el:
Mishnah rules that seven readers be called to read 'Iyyun Mehudash," Tarbiz 67 (1998): 167-87. <
from the weekly portion, three verses each, for a to- 23. See ibid., 183-87. <
tal of twenty-one. However, during the portion of 24. See his Peirush ha-Tefillot, ed. Prague, 52b. A
Amalek, the Sabbath before Purim, Exod. 17:8-16 25. Tishbi (Grodno, 1805), 5. v.ptr, 45a. <
did not reach the required number. A 26. See Louis Ginzberg, Ginzei Schechter. Geonica
10. See B. Meg. 31b. < (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
11. See Mordecai Margulies, Ha-hillukimshe-bein 1929), 2:302, no.xxvi. <
'Anshei Mizrah u-Benei 'Eretz-Yisrael (Jerusalem, 27. Commenting on B. Shab. 24a, s. v. hiftir (he
1938), 88. < ' cites it anonymously). A
Abbreviations
AB Anchor Bible
AfO Archivfur Orientsforschung
AJSL Americanjournal ofSemitic Languages andLiterature
ANET J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 3rd ed.
AOAT Alter Orient undAltes Testament
AOS American Oriental Society
Av. Zar. Avodah Zarah
B. Babylonian Talmud
BA BiblicalArchaeologist
BASOR Bulletin oftheAmerican Schools ofOriental Research
BB Bava Batra
BBB Bonner biblische Beitrage
BibOr Biblica et Orientalia
BIES Bulletin ofthelsraelExploration Society
BJRL Bulletin ofthejohn RylandsLibmry
BK Bava Kamma
BKAT Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament
BM Bava Metzia
BWANT Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift
BZAW Beihefte fur die Zeitschrift fur die alltestamentlicher Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chi-
cago
CBQ Catholic BiblicalQuarterly
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament
Deut. R. Deuteronomy Rabbah
EI Eretz Israel
EM :EntziklopedyahMikm'it (Jerusalem: MosadBialik, 1950-88)
Encjud Encyclopaediajuda-ica (1971)
ET Evangelische Theologie
Exod. R. Exodus Rabbah
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testa-
ments
Gen. R. Genesis Rabbah
Git. Gittin
Hag. Hagigah
HAR HebrewAnnual Review
ABBREVIATIONS
HKAT Handkommentar zur Alten Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew 'Union College-Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IDB Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible
IEJ IsraelExplorationJournal
IOS Israel Oriental Studies
ITQ Irish TheologicalQuarterly
J. Jerusalem Talmud
JAAR Journal oftheAmericanAcademy ofReligion
JAB Journalfor theAmmaic Bible
JAKES Journal oftheAncient NearEastern Society of Columbia University
JAOS Journal oftheAmerican Oriental Society
JBL Journal ofBiblicalLiterature
JBLMS Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
JCS Journal ofCuneiform Studies
JJS JournalofJewishStudies
JNES JournalofNearEasternStudies
JNSL Journal ofNorthwest SemiticLanguajje
JPOS Journal ofthe Palestine Oriental Society
JQR JewishQuarterly Review
JSJ Journalfor the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and 'Roman Pe-
riod
JSOT Journalfor the Study ofthe Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series
JSQ Jewish StudiesQuarterly
JSS Journal ofSemitic Studies
JTS Journal ofTheological Studies
Lev. R. Leviticus Rabbah
LXX Septuagint
M. Mishnah
Ma'as. Sh. Ma'aser Sheni
Mak. Makkot
MdRSbY Mekhilta de-Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai
MdRY Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael
Meg. Megillah
Mekh. Mekhilta
Men. Menahot
Mid. Midrash
Mid. Hag. Midrash Ha-Gadol
Milgrom,
Numbers J. Milgrom, TheJPS Torah Commentary: Numbers
MK Mo'ed Katan
MT Masoretic text
NAB NewAmerican Bible
NEB NewEnglish Bible
Ned. Nedarim
NJPS New Jewish Publication Society translation (1985)
ABBREVIATIONS XXXVI
Num. R. Numbers Rabbah
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
OJPS Old Jewish Publication Society translation (1917)
OTL Old Testament Library
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien
PdRK Pesikta de-Rav Kahana
PEQ PalestineExplomtion (Fund) Quarterly
Pes. Pesahim
Pesh. Peshitta
1Q, etc. Sigla for Qumran texts: the number preceding Q refers to the cave in
which the text was found; the word or number following it refers to the
composition; raised letters identify different manuscripts of the same work.
Thus 1QS = text 5 from Qumran cave 1; 4QDeut c = third manuscript
of Deuteronomy from Qumran cave 4.
1QS Rule of the Congregation, from Qumran cave 1.
lQSa Appendix to 1QS.
RB Revue biblique
REJ Revue desEtudesJuives
RHR Revue de PHistoire des Religions
RSR Researches de Sciences Religieuse
Sam. Samuel
Sanh. Sanhedrin
Sarna, Genesis N. M. Sarna, TheJPS Torah Commentary: Genesis
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
Shab. Shabbat
Shek. Shekalim
Shev. Shevi'it
Sif. Deut. Sifre Deuteronomy
Sif. Zut. Sifre Zuta
SOR Seder 'Olam Rabbah
Sot. Sotah
SOTSMS Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series
Suk. Sukkah
SFT Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
Syr. Syriac
Ta'an. Ta'anit
Tanh. Tanhuma
Targ. Targum
Targ. Jon. Targum Jonathan
Targ. Neof. Targum Neofiti
Targ. Onk. Targum Onkelos
Targ. Yer. Targum Yerushalmi
TBu Theologische Bucherei
Ter. Terumot
Tigay,
Deuteronomy J . H . Tigay, TheJPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy
Toh. Tohorot
Tosef. Tosefta
xxxvii ABBREVIATIONS
Transl. Translators' note
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UT C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (1965)
VT Vetus Testamentum
Vulg. Vulgate
WCJS World Congress of lewish Studies, Papers
Weinfeld, DDS M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School
Weiss I. H. Weiss, Sifra De-Vei Rav (Vienna, 1862; reprint, New York: Om,
1946)
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament
Yad. Yadayim
Yal. Yalkut Shim'oni
Yeb. Yevamot
ZA ZeitschriftfurAssyriologie
ZAL Zeitschriftfur alttestamentlischenLitemtur
ZAW Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Paliistina-Vereins
Zeb. Zevahim
ZS Zeitschriftfur Semitistik
ZTK Zeitschriftfur Theologie und Kirche
Transliteration
We have adopted a popular system for transliteration of Hebrew, except for the following letters,
which have no English equivalent:
}
alef = } (silent or a break in sound)
het = h (pronounced as the guttural "ch" in German)
khaf = kh (pronounced as the guttural "ch" in German)
'ayin = f (silent or a break in sound)
tzadi = tz (pronounced as in "blitz")
Where the letters kh are meant to be read as two distinct consonants, we have separated them
by a raised dot (e. g., Va-yak-hel).
In general, the letters kaf and kof are both rendered by the letters tet and tav are rendered by t;
the letters samekh and sin are rendered by y; and the letters -pet and va-v are rendered by v. How-
ever, we represent those letters distinctly where needed for contrast within a word, or to clarify
a stem; in such cases, the 'tet is rendered by t and the va-v by w (e. g., lintot; b-w-:'). Where needed
ABBREVIATIONS xxxviii
to highlight the link between the hard and soft (spirantized) sounds represented in Hebrew by
peh andfeh, respectively, we have rendered the soft sound as ph (pronounced as "f").
We have tended to double the transliterated letter when a strong dagesh in Hebrew either char-
acterizes a verbal conjugation or indicates that a stem sound has been assimilated. However, a
single letter is used for strong dagesh when its equivalent English letter either follows a hyphenated
prefix, is the first or last letter of the word, follows or precedes another consonant in translitera-
tion, or involves a letter pair (e. g, "sh").
For other Semitic languages, the following characters are sometimes used: h for velar het, t for
tet, t for th (as in "thin"), s for shin, s for sin, and s for tzadi.
Verse notation
Where verses are subdivided into parts, a and b following the verse number signify the part of
the verse before and after the 'etnahta, respectively.
Chronology
For purposes of consensus and consistency, the chronology of Kings £o]lowsEncyclopaediaJudaica,
vol. 8, in the chart following column 766. For other possibilities, see 'Entziklopedia Mikm'it,
vol. 4, p. 262.
XXXIX ABBREVIATIONS
THE COMMENTARY TO THE HAFTAROT
HAFTAROT FOR WEEKLY READINGS
GENESIS m^Nin
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their
historical setting and theological concerns, see the "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in
"Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several
haftarah readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
Isaiah 42:5-43:10 is part of a collection of prophecies addressed to the Judean community
in Babylonian exile (mid-sixth century B.C.E.). It attempts to inspire national awareness and
confidence in their divine destiny. The haftarah is composed of several speeches and prophecies.
These emphasize the universal dominion of God and His special concern for the redemption
of Israel, created to be "My witnesses" among the nations. God's power to create or destroy is
combined with His will to strengthen Israel and protect her in travail. Israel's own liberation is
a light that radiates God's redemptive purposes to all people.
The haftarah is composed of several distinct prophecies; nevertheless, a certain thematic consistency
can readily be discerned. Overall, the prophet's concern is to convince the people of the power of
God and His promise of redemption. The opening part thus begins with a proclamation by God
that He is the creator of the world and its inhabitants, and goes on to pronounce His redemptive
plan to release the people from servitude. God summons Israel forth by His "grace" (tzedek)
(Isa. 42:6) —and this call may be trusted because of God's fulfillment of prior promises. Despite
the good news, Israel remains "blind" and unresponsive to the divine initiative (v. 18-20). As
a counterpoint, the people are told that "the L O R D desires His [servant's] vindication [tzidko],
that he may magnify and glorify [His] Teaching [torah]" (v. 21).
The Sephardic tradition concludes its haftarah reading here, framing its message with the terms
tzedek and tzidko. It is also likely that closure at this point was influenced by a reinterpretation of
the word torah. In its original context, the word strictly refers to a prophetic instruction (as in Isa.
2:3, "for instruction [torah] shall come forth from Zion"). But once it was assumed to refer to the
Torah of Moses as a whole, 1 the prophet's word could be taken to foretell the glorious magnification
of God's Law. Such a promise would seem a fit conclusion to the liturgical reading.
The longer Ashkenazic tradition extends the theological counterpoint. After stating that the
people do not see or hear the prophecies of hope addressed to them (Isa. 42:18-20), the prophet
announces that God will nevertheless restore Israel to its homeland (43:3-6). God's deliverance
of Israel from blindness (43:8) provides a triumphal echo to the role of the servant at the outset
of the haftarah, where his task is specified as leading the blind into the light of freedom (42:6-7).
A further reference to the opening oracle is heard in the concluding address to the nations. God's
power to predict events is the reason to believe His new word of hope (43:9; cf. 42:9). The
celebration of the Lord as creator further highlights the framing character of parts 1 and 4.
Other connections among the parts of the haftarah may be observed. Notable are references
to God's "glory," "renown," and "honor" (kevodi/kavod; tehillati/tehillato) in parts 1 and 2 (Isa.
42:8 and 12); God's silence ('aharish) and the people's deafness (heresh, hareshim) in parts 2 and
3 (42:14 and 18-19); God's "Teaching" (torah, torato), also in parts 2 and 3 (42:21 and 24);
and the burning (va-tiv'ar) of divine judgment and the people's travail (tiv'ar) in parts 3 and 4
(42:25 and 43:2).
It may have been these close verbal connections that guided the ancient editors to collate
this series of oracles. Read continuously in the haftarah, the repetitions reveal unexpected coun-
terpoints that deepen the overall message. For example, the references to God's glory and honor
COMMENTS
Isaiah 42:5. There is a recurrence of terms from Genesis 1 - 2 in this verse. The creation
account speaks of how God "created" (bam') the "heaven" (ha-shamayim) and the "earth" (ha-
'aretz), of a "wind" (ruah) from God sweeping over the water, of an "expanse" (mkia c ) in the
midst of the water, and of the "breath of life" (nishmat hayyim) that enlivens the first creature.
Correspondingly, our prophet speaks of God "who created [bore'] the heavens \ha-shamayimY
and "spread out \rokac\ the earth [ha-'aretz]" and "who gave breath [neshamah] to the people
upon it and life [ruah] to those who walk thereon." 4
6-7. A direct summons to God's servant to proclaim the word of redemption (cf. 42:
1). The formulation derives from prophetic commission scenes. As in Jer. 1:5, the messenger
5 HAFTARAH FOR BERE'SHIT
has been "created" and "appointed" to bring God's word to the "nations." 5 In the present case,
God also calls upon His servant to serve as a "covenant people" and a "light of nations." 6 These
expressions are difficult. Rashi understood the addressee in Isa. 42:5 to be the prophet himself,
who was called to restore the nations to God's covenant; these nations are the tribes of Israel.
On the other hand, it is possible to interpret the messenger as an individual whose task is to re-
establish Israel so that they may serve as a beacon of light for all peoples (Ibn Ezra). If, however,
the messenger is Israel, then the phrase would mean that God has established the entire people
for a universal mission (Kimhi). 7
Commission language also occurs in Isa. 43:1-2, where the nation is called upon to follow
God to their homeland. The language of support used there ("fear not," "I will be with you")
is a hallmark of the divine response to prophetic expressions of fear or unworthiness (see ler. 1:
8). 8 The language of divine assistance through grasping the prophet's hand ahzeik be-yadekha)
occurs in Isa. 42:6, and similar terminology is found in 41:13 and 45:1. The idiom is arguably
influenced by Babylonian hymns, where a god "takes the hand" of his servant and "supports the
hands of the weak." 9
6. ItheLoRD Hebrew }ani YHWH. The phrase recurs in Isa. 42:8;43:3; and elsewhere
in Isaiah (e. g., 41:13; 45:5, 7, 21). 10 This divine self-naming emphasizes God's creative power
and singularity. This emphasis on the name Y H W H occurs first in Exod. 6:2, in God's special
disclosure to Moses. The focus on this name in Isaiah goes together with his emphasis on an
absolute and exclusive monotheism. The theological point is that Israel's particular and personal
LORD is the universal God of all creation. Elsewhere, the name-formula serves other theological
purposes. For example, the Pentateuchal instruction "You shall be holy, for I, the L O R D ani
YHWH] your God, am holy" (Lev. 19:2) stresses the ideal of imitating God; it stands in marked
contrast to Isa. 43:3, where God Himself proclaims that "I the LORD ['ani 'YHWH] am your
God, the Holy One oflsrael, your Savior." Here God's transcendent power is emphasized.
inMyjjmce Hebrew be-tzedek; literally, "with grace." The meaning of tzedek varies. In
many cases it refers to divine righteousness (Isa. 1:27; Ps. 9:9). The term can also bear the sense
of God's acts of legal vindication (Isa. 45:21), righteousness (Isa. 5:16) and righteous judgment
(Ps. 99:4), andespeciallymilitaryvictory (1 Sam. 12:7; Isa. 46:13, 59:17). 11
a light of nations That is, the agent of good fortune; compare Isa. 42:1-4; 49:6; and
51:4-5 [Transl.].
7. Opening eyes deprived of light An idiom meaning "freeing the imprisoned"; compare
Isa. 61:1 [Transl.].
9. the things once predicted Literally, the "former things" (ri'shonot). The term is often
juxtaposed to prophecies to come, here called the "new things" (hadashot). The former prophecies
are those that have already been fulfilled, probably a reference to the fall of Babylon. 12 Reference
to early prophecies is a major motif of the prophet (see Isa. 41:22; 44:7; 45:21; 46:10; 48:3)
and regularly used to motivate the people to trust the new prophecies of restoration. Distinctive
to Isaiah 40-48 is the argument that the fulfillment of prophecy is proof of God's unique nature.
Compare Isa. 43:9-10; 44:8; 45:21; and46:9-10.
10. SING to the LORD The exhortation in Isa. 42:10-12 echoes the liturgical formulations
in Ps. 107:2, 8, 21-22. Other linguistic affinities may be observed between the prophet and this
psalmist. Compare Isa. 42:7 and Ps. 107:7, 10, 14; Isa. 43:19-20 and Ps. 107:4; and Isa. 41:
18 and Ps. 107:33. The precise direction of influence is difficult to determine.
14. I have kept silent Traditionally, since the destruction of the Temple and during the
exilic sorrows of the nations (Rashi; Kimhi).
18-25. These verses contain a complex and varied expansion oflsa. 30:9-14. 1 3 By con-
trast, Isa. 42:1-9 is taken up and reinterpreted in 61:1-9. In these and other cases, the Book of
Isaiah shows itselfto be the product of ongoing prophetic tradition.
6 HAFTARAH FOR BERE'SHIT
21. The LORD desires His [servant's] vindication The reference of the pronoun follows
the context. Nevertheless, Luzzatto suggested that God desires His own vindication. When
torah ("Teaching") came to be understood as the Torah of Moses, the Sages used this passage
to support their view that it is through the magnification of the Torah and commandments (the
written Torah with its oral expansions) that Jews are vindicated before God (see M. Avot 6:11;
B. Makkot 23b; Yalkut Shimoni 1:750). The phrase concludes the eschatological Uva' le-Tziyon
prayer, recited weekday mornings and on Sabbath afternoon.
Isaiah 43:1. But 'now Hebrew ve-'atah. According to Ibn Ezra, the confession of sin in
Isa. 4 2 : 2 4 is the link to the new proclamation of redemption in 4 3 : 1 - 7 . He thus understands this
opening phrase in a conjunctive sense (i. e., "and now," since you have confessed). The language
of creation and the references to Israel's being "singled out" or "linked" to God's name frame the
speech ( 4 3 : 1 , 7 ) . The proclamation "thus said the L O R D " appears here and in the opening line
of the haftarah ( 4 2 : 5 ) . The phrase authorizes the prophecies.
3. Egypt as a •ransom Traditionally understood as the firstborn of Egypt, who died instead
of the Israelites (Rashi). Others have sought to identify later historical events (Kimhi). The
theological image is that Israel's redemption from Babylon requires the subjugation of other
nations in recompense. This idea is again asserted in Isa. 43:4, in the context of Israel's special
divine status.
7. are linked Hebrew nikm\ Ibn Ezra stressed the passive construction here and argued
that the verse must refer to all those "who are called" (or: "have been called") by God's name;
that is, those who are called "Isra-el." By contrast, Isa. 44:5 refers to people who actively call
themselves by God's name ("I am the L O R D ' S " ) or "use the name of'Jacob.' " The prophet even
refers to the custom of marking one's arm with the phrase "of the L O R D . "
9. It is true That is, that the other nations' gods are real [Transl.].
10. My witnesses are you Israel's historical existence is proof of God's incomparable exist-
ence, by virtue of the fulfillment of divine prophecies made about them. This point is proclaimed
in the context of the nullity of the nations' witness (Isa. 43:9). These issues are combined in 44:
6 - 9 as well. In rabbinic times, the Sages extended Isaiah's insight and formulated it with more
paradoxical and daring rhetoric: " 'So you are My witnesses—declares the LORD—and I am
God' [Isa. 43:12]; and when you are not My witnesses then I, as it were, am not God" (Sifre
Deuteronomy 346). 14
The formulation of an absolute monotheism is articulated here by the phrase "Before Me no
god was formed, and after Me none shall exist." God is thus the beginning and end of all things,
as stated explicitly in Isa. 44:6 and 48:12. The theme of divine incomparability finds many ex-
pressions in Isaiah's prophecies, but none occur in this haftarah (cf. Isa. 45:5-6, 18, 22). This
theme is found in the Torah in Deut. 32:39, where God's uniqueness is linked to the redemption
from Egypt (v. 12). See also the formulation in Hannah's prayer. She adds that even the "holy
ones" in heaven (angels) cannot be compared to God (1 Sam. 2:2).
The theme of creation links the liturgical readings and shows something of the range and pur-
poses of creation theology in the Bible. Over against the exalted and impersonal narrative style
in Gen. 1:1-2:4, the references to the creation in the haftarah (Isa. 42:5) are marked by a more
engaged personal tone. Indeed the depiction of God as creator is not an abstract teaching (as in
Gen. 1:1, "When God began to create [bere'shit bam'] heaven and earth"), but an expression of
an active and engaged theology within history. Thus, for Isaiah, God is not only the one "Who
created [bore'] the heavens and . . . spread out the earth" (42:5), but the Lord "who created you
[bora'akha], O Jacob"—and "will redeem you" (43:1). In all these cases the prophet uses verbs in
Haftarah for N o a h nj
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their
historical setting and theological concerns, see the "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in
"Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several
haftarah readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah contains a series of promises and assurances to Zion and her inhabitants, de-
stroyed and decimated since the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The prophet now prophesies
the restoration of divine mercy and covenantal promises. God swears an end to His wrath and
compares this oath to the one sworn after the Flood in the time of Noah. This comparison links
the renewal of creation in xhcpa-mshah to the restoration of Zion in the haftarah.
The haftarah opens with promises of God's unilateral mercy and kindness (parts 1 and 2) and
concludes with references to reciprocal responsibilities between the people and their Lord (part
3). The shift is unexpected. At the beginning, Zion (the feminine embodiment of the city) is both
childless (lo'yaladah) and uncomforted (lo} 'nuhamah) —but is promised children and mercy by
God (Isa. 54:1-2). She is "called back" (v. 6) by God's unconditional love and promised both
"kindness everlasting [hesed }olam]" (v. 8) and "covenant of friendship [berit shelomi]" (v. 10).
At the end, God calls to the people to "give heed" and "hearken"—that they "be revived" and
receive His sustenance (55:2-3). The reward for the people's loyalty is now called God's gift
of an "everlasting covenant \berit 'olam], the enduring loyalty promised to David [hasdei David
ha-ne'emanim]" (55:3). A renewal of spirit is thus envisioned for the nation, stimulated by the
restoration of divine compassion.
Figures of assurance dominate the prophet's style. In part 1 this is dramatized through ex-
panding expressions of God's attributes. Thus the opening proclamation ends simply with the
words "said the L O R D " (Isa. 54:1); but after several oracles of renewed kindness, the conclusion
states, "said the LORD your Redeemer" (54:8); and the finale to God's oath of permanent loy-
alty triumphantly proclaims, "said the LORD, who takes you back in love" (54:10). In a striking
manner, the divine attributes are also progressively more transitive, complementing the drama of
God's outreach to the people. The nation successively learns that "the L O R D " who speaks (54:1)
is the " L O R D of Hosts" and that "The Holy One of Israel" who "redeems" Zion is none other
than the "God of all the Earth" (54:5). Intimate love is expressed by the universal God.
The prophet uses words such as hesed and lo} with changing emphases in order to highlight
movement from negative states to promises of glory. Thus, in part 1, the people are promised
both "kindness everlasting [hesed}olam]" (Isa. 54:8) and that neither "My loyalty [hesed] . . . nor
My covenant [berit] of friendship be shaken" (54:10). These legal terms are reconfigured in part
3, where the nation's renewal is guaranteed by "an everlasting covenant [berit 'olam], the endur-
ing loyalty promised to David [hasdeiDavid ha-ne'emanim]" (55:3).
These transformations are reinforced by a series of dramatic juxtapositions. In addition to uses
of the particle lo} (no) to express the negative state of Zion "who bore no [lo}] child" and "did not
[lo}] travail" (Isa. 54:1), the particle also reinforces the positive and permanent changes of divine
love. Zion is told that she will "not [lo}] be shamed" or disgraced and that she will "remember no
[lo}] more" the reproach of her past (54:4). Part 1 also concludes with the statement that God's
covenant shall "never [lo}] move from you" (54:10). A similar progression is found in part 3,
where the negative depiction of Zion as one "storm-tossed" and "uncomforted [lo} 'nuhamah]"
(54:11) is reversed by promises that the city shall have "no [lo}] fear" (v. 14) and that "no [lo}]
COMMENTS
Isaiah 54:1. children ofthe wifeforlorn The juxtaposition in w. 1 and 2 - 6 of a "forlorn"
(shomemah) or "forsaken" ('azuvalo) wife with an "espoused" bride (he'ulah) is a motif also found
in Isa. 62:4-5 and 12. The presentation of God as bo'ala-yikh, the one who "will espouse you"
(54:5), is echoed in 62:4-5. The terminology has roots in the Pentateuchal law (Deut. 24:1)
and was used by other prophets as well (see ler. 3:14, following the marriage imagery in 3:1,
6-10). 4 The form bo'ala-yikh is a plural with the sense of a singular (Ibn Bal'am). 5
3. nations That is, the foreigners who had occupied regions from which Israelites had
been exiled (cf. 2 Kings 17:24) [Transl.].
6-8. The reference to Israel as "wife of his youth" (ne'urim) recalls the terminology in
other uses of the marriage motif (Hos. 2:17; ler. 2:2; Ezek. 23:8, 19). The word hesed alludes
to the covenant response found also in Hos. 2:21 and ler. 2:2. The word conveys the idea of
The primary connection between the haftarah andpa-mshah is their common reference to
the flood in the days ofNoah—the result of divine wrath. That primordial event is invoked by
Isaiah as part of God's promise of renewed loyalty to His people. A series of verbal links connects
the present situation to the original event. Just as formerly, when God made a "covenant" (berit)
with Noah and his descendants (Gen. 9 : 9 , 1 1 , 1 5 ) and swore that there will "not again" (lo}. . . 'od)
be a destruction of the earth and its inhabitants (Gen. 9:11, 15), so now the nation is promised a
renewed "covenant" (berit) from God (Isa. 5 4 : 1 0 ; 5 5 : 3 ) and the hope that their shame will "no
more" (lo} 'od) be recalled (Isa. 5 4 : 4 ) . 1 6 The prophet transforms the language of the older nar-
rative in two respects. First, a covenant guaranteeing the stability of nature becomes a guarantee
of the permanence of divine loyalty toward Zion and Israel. Second, a pact made between God
and all humans becomes a covenant with a particular people. These asymmetries only heighten
the mythic proportions by which the nation understood its destruction and restoration.
Another version of the divine oath in Genesis contributes an additional dimension. In it,
God swears: "Never again [lo}. . . 'od\ will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings
of man's mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again [ve-lo}. . . 'od\ destroy every living
being, as I have done" (Gen. 8 : 2 1 ) . According to the prophet Isaiah, the divine oath of restraint
is not motivated by this realization of the human propensity for evil, but by God's decision to
transform His love for His creatures into an everlasting covenant. The final section of the hafta-
rah suggests that the human heart may be reciprocally transformed through heeding the call for
spiritual living that is God's gift to "all who are thirsty" (Isa. 5 5 : 1 - 3 ) .
Two models of piety are offered by xhcpa-mshah and haftarah. One is the example o f N o a h ,
who is characterized as a tzaddik, a "righteous man" who was "blameless in his age" and "walked
with God" (Gen. 6:9). This is a model of righteousness focused on inner purity. It is the way of
spiritual aloneness, with all its inner demands and mysteries. The other example is that of the
"disciples of the L O R D " who "establish" their city "through righteousness (bi-tzdakah)" (Isa. 5 4 :
1 3 - 1 4 ) . This model is focused on the community and its collective transformation. Here the tasks
are public and the demands are in full view. Maimonides perceptively found a scriptural source
for the duty of charity (tzedakah) in Isa. 54:14—and underscored the importance of such piety
for collective religious life. 17 Uniquely, charity trains the heart in selflessness and thus reveals
how social piety may nourish spiritual inwardness. It is an example of how interpersonal and
individual models of religiosity may interconnect.
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 4 0 - 6 6 " in "Overview
of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
This haftarah is an appeal to the nation, seed of Abraham, to "trust in the L O R D " and return
from exile to their homeland. The exhortations were delivered in Babylon, sometime in the
Utilizing distinct styles and concerned with diverse themes, the oracles of the haftarah were
presumably uttered at different times. They were anthologized together on the basis of external
verbal links. For example, the language of God's proclamation to Israel in part 1, calling upon
them to "renew their strength" (yahalifu koah) through trust in the Lord (Isa. 40:31), is repeated
more ironically in part 2, where this call for renewal is part of a challenge to the nations (41:1). 1
Similarly, parts 2 and 3 are linked by references to God's "summons" or "call" (kara') (41:2, 4,
9); by diverse uses of the verbs "strengthen" (hazak) (41:6, 9, 13) and "help" ('azar) (41:6, 10,
13, 14); and by repetitions of the noun "victory" (tzedek) (41:2, 10). These two parts are also
characterized by the repeated self-reference of God as "I" (41:4, 10, 13-14). 2
Read as part of a larger whole, these verbal connections take on thematic substance. Thus,
the repetition of the term for "summons" brings into association the themes of God as creator
and redeemer—who "announces" the generations from the beginning (Isa. 41:4), "summons"
His victor from the East (v. 2), and "calls" Israel from the ends of the earth (v. 9). Similarly, the
recurrence of the verb "strengthen" ironically contrasts the folly of the idolators (41:7) and God's
support and restoration of Israel (v. 9, 13). And finally, the repetition of the phrase ketzot loa-'a-retz
in parts 1-3, alternatively describes God as creator "of the earth from end to end" (40:28); the
foreign nations themselves ("ends of earth"), who behold God's victor in fear and trembling (41:
HAFTARAH FOR LEKH LEKHA 13
5); and God's act of liberation of Israel from "the ends of the earth," to be His servant (41:9).
In the repetition of this phrase all the themes of the haftarah are encapsulated—God as creator,
victor over the nations, and redeemer oflsrael.
A deeper psychological sequence can also be discerned among the parts. Beginning with
Israel's statement of despair and the prophetic encouragement that God will renew the nation's
strength, the speeches go on to announce how God uses history for His own ends. Starting from
the depths of impotence, hope is emboldened by the promise that God will unilaterally initiate a
triumph over the nations. From there the stress is put on divine support for Israel in the triumph
over her enemies and her restoration to the homeland. The final vision returns to the imagery
of destruction and envisions Israel as a threshing board that will winnow the mountains: "the
wind shall carry them off; the whirlwind shall scatter them" (Isa. 41:16).
The haftarah moves progressively from the realism of despair to a near surreal vision of victory.
In the process, Israel's speech moves from lament to exhilaration. Israel's opening words, "My
way is hid from the LORD" (Isa. 40:27), and the final divine promise, "but you shall rejoice in
the LORD" (41:16), mark these two poles. In between is formulated the proof: God will arouse
a victor (Cyrus the Mede, according to Ibn Ezra) who will destroy the nations and thereby help
prepare the fulfillment of the divine promises. The initial cry of disbelief is countered with reasons
for trust, offering encouragement to the weary and forlorn among the exiles and promising that
God will help them and bring their enemies to ruin.
In an attempt to motivate the people, the prophet alludes to earlier moments of divine support.
In the opening oracle, the sense of being forgotten in exile is countered by the promise that the
faithful will renew their strength and soar homeward like eagles (Isa. 40:31). This promise echoes
the people's redemption from Egypt, when God first "bore you [the Israelites] on eagles' wings"
(Exod. 19:4). "Like an eagle . . . did He spread His wings and take [Israel], bear him along on His
pinions" (Deut. 32:11). An even earlier event of divine guidance is alluded to in the reference to the
nation as the "Seed of Abraham My friend" (Isa. 41:8). As this patriarch faithfully followed God
and was promised the blessing of the land for his "seed" (Gen. 15:5), so may Israel, "the Seed of
Abraham" confidently anticipate its own restoration to the homeland. The special status of the na-
tion is also underscored by its designation as God's "servant" whom He has "chosen" (41:8-9).
COMMENTS
Isaiah 40:27. ccMy way is hidfrom the LORD" This is a quote from a communal lament,
bemoaning the lack of divine knowledge. 3 Hence the prophet counters that God's "wisdom can-
not be fathomed" (v. 28). This allegation of hiddenness is different from the theological motif
that God deliberately hides His face from His creatures as an expression of anger or rejection
(cf. Deut. 31:18; Ps. 44:25). Rashi's view—that God has hidden from His eyes how Israel has
served Him—blunts the force of the lament.
28. Do you not know? The questions introduce a glorification of God as creator, and a
subsequent section mocks idol making (Isa. 41:6-7). Note the similar cluster of elements in
40:18-25 (anti-idolatry; the question "Do you not know?"; God the creator). This is part of a
pattern of rhetorical elements characteristic of the prophet. 4
31. new plumes Alluding to a popular belief that eagles regain their youth when they molt;
compare Ps. 103:5: "your youth is renewed like the eagle's" [Transl.].
Isaiah 41:2. Who has •roused a victorfrom the East The syntax is difficult. The cantillation
notes divide the phrase so that the first words (mi he-'ir mi-mizmh) imply the arousal by God
("Who") of a champion ("from the East"), and the word tzedek refers to his deeds (i. e., "vic-
tory"). Rashi follows this reading. Another interpretation construes the phrase to indicate God's
arousal of a "victor" from the East who is "summoned" to divine service. The Targum follows
this approach, interpreting tzedek (victor) as an epithet of the "righteous one" (tzaddik ) aroused
from the East. An ancient midrashic tradition identified this individual as Abraham. 5 The Targum,
Through Isaiah's reference to Israel as the "Seed \zerac\ of Abraham My friend," a correlation is
established between this prophecy of renewal and the promise in xhcpa-msha-h that this patriarch
will have "offspring [zera']" as numerous as the stars on high (Gen. 15:5). Based on this typology
the ludeans in exile may hope that God will rescue them from Babylon, just as he once brought
Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans to the Promised Land (Gen. 15:7). At one level, therefore,
the nation's restoration from their Chaldean exile completes God's promises to Abraham. God's
HAFTARAH FOR LEKH LEKHA 15
new word of trust (-W tim\ "Fear not" [Isa. 41:10]) thus echoes his ancient promise of assurance
(}altim\ "Fear not" [Gen. 15:1]) to the patriarch.
By this intertextual correlation, the haftarah suggests the mystery of divine protection to later
generations. The God who rewarded Abraham's faith with tzeda-kah (merit [Gen. 15:6]) speaks
now to all the people with the promise of providential care: "I am your God . . . I uphold you
with My victorious right hand \bi-ymin tzidki]" (Isa. 41:10). Isaiah seeks to awaken his audience
to this reality and so provide the hope that renews strength. By proclaiming that the vitiated
spirit may be revived through trust in God's creative might (40:28-31), the prophet offers a new
theology of divine care and redemption.
ASHKENAZIM 2KINGS4:l-37
SEPHARDIM 2 KINGS 4:1-23
For the contents of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall content, historiography,
and theology, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah selections from the Book of
Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah presents two miracles performed by the prophet Elisha: the first involves the
provision of oil for a poor widow, that she might redeem her children from debt-bondage and
live on the proceeds of the remainder (2 Kings 4:1-7); the second includes the annunciation
of a child for a barren woman, that she might be rewarded for her charity, and the subsequent
revival of the boy after a fatal illness (v. 8-37). These two wonders are part of a cycle of tales
of help and healing that commence with the death of Elijah (mid-ninth century B.C.E.) and the
descent ofhis spirit upon his disciple Elisha (2 Kings 2:1-15). 1
As is typical of legendary narratives, the two miracle tales include biographical and locative
elements, focusing on lives and places.2
The two tales are complexly intertwined. At first sight there seems to be little connection be-
tween them: the first portrays a miracle of food for a debtor widow, while the second describes
the resurrection of a wealthy woman's son. But at a deeper level, intriguing relations emerge.
Food provides the first point of contact—since its absence in the first text is the reason for the
miracle of plenty and its presence in the second text (as charity) is the reason for the annuncia-
tion of the child's birth. Significantly, in both cases we also have the query "What can I/we do
for you?" (2 Kings 4:2, 13), and the subsequent fulfillment of the request. The third point of
connection revolves around the theme of children—they are taken and restored in the first case
and announced and restored in the second. Furthermore, in the performance of the miracle, the
same phrase is used in each story. In the first tale, the woman is told to "go in and shut the door
behind you" when she pours the oil (v. 4); while in the account of resurrection, Elisha himself
"went in" to the child's room (actually his own guest room; cf. v. 21) and "shut the door behind
the two of them" (v. 33).
Such thematic and verbal patterning suggests a close tie between the tales, perhaps drawing
upon a cluster of oral traditions. The commonality of motifs extends beyond the haftarah, for
Elisha repeats actions performed by his teacher, Elijah (in 1 Kings 1 7 : 7 - 2 4 ) . In that case, the
man of God (Elijah) first performed a miracle over food ( 1 Kings 1 7 : 7 - 1 6 ) , telling a "widow"
at Zarephath that her "jar of flour shall not give out and the jug of oil shall not fail until the day
that the L O R D sends rain upon the ground" (v. 1 4 ) . Subsequently, he resurrected "the son of
the mistress" in the upper chamber of the house where he had been a guest, by stretching over
the child three times (v. 1 7 - 2 4 ) . 3 A pair of miracle tales, variously elaborated, would explain
the relationship between the two sets of stories. Between the two sets, the difference is one of
degree. In the case of the miracle of the oil, neither story explicitly mentions God as the cause
of the miracle, but in both events the women do as the wonder-worker says. In the case of the
resurrected son, however, the narrator of Elisha's tale only remarks that the prophet "prayed to
the L O R D " ( 2 Kings 4 : 3 3 ) ; whereas 1 Kings 1 7 : 2 1 - 2 2 cites Elijah's full petition—"O L O R D my
God, let this childs life return to his body!"—subsequently adding that "the L O R D heard Elijah's
plea." Clearly this is the more pious version, with a narrative that neutralizes magical effects while
emphasizing supernatural healing and the power of prayer.4
The two miracle tales in the haftarah underscore two types of sustenance: food and breath.
But here, too, there is a significant difference between the cycles. In the case of Elisha, in our
haftarah, the man of God lies over the corpse and breathes into it—"his mouth on its mouth"
(2 Kings 4:34). The effect is miraculous—a transfer of vital essence, as evidenced by the fact
that the child sneezes upon reviving. By contrast, in the resurrection drama of 1 Kings 17 there
is no explicit remark that Elijah breathed into the child. Rather, the prophet Elijah "cried out
to the L O R D " in prayer (1 Kings 17:21). Reflecting this issue, the episode concludes with the
statement of the mother, who asserts that Elijah is a divine messenger, and that "the word of
the L O R D is truly in your mouth" (1 Kings 17:24). It is the word of promise and prayer that is
stressed here. Elijah is portrayed primarily as the pious intermediary of the miracle. His body and
breath, infused with mantic powers, are not singled out. But just these two factors are stressed
in our haftarah. Indeed, in 2 Kings 4:34-35 it is the concrete physicality of the holy man that is
the channel of the supernatural healing.
Verbal repetitions and puns give the haftarah dramatic intensity. In the story of the jug of oil,
the action moves from the prophet's instruction to the widow to "pour" out the oil (ve-yatzakt [2
Kings 4:4]), to her wondrous fulfillment of the task (:motza-ket [v. 5]). Similarly, in the account of the
the king [of Israel] was talking to Gehazi, the servant of the man of God, and he said,
"Tell me all the wonderful things [ha-gedolot] that Elisha has done." While he was telling
the king how [Elisha] had revived a dead person, in came the woman whose son he had
revived, complaining to the king about her house and farm. "My Lord king," said Gehazi,
"this is the woman and this is her son whom Elisha revived." The king questioned the
woman, and she told him [the story] . . . .
Something like this tale of wonders must have circulated among the disciples—reworked as it
was retold and eventually written down for generations to come. 5 In just this way, the great
deeds of the Lord, from the Exodus on, were told from mouth to ear, as memory and message,
until they were collected and inscribed as sacred Scripture for all time (see Exod. 10:1-2; Pss.
78:2-8; 106:2).
COMMENTS
2 Kin^s 4:1.A certain 'woman... cried out to Elisha This cry, Hebrew tza'a-kah, denotes
an appeal for legal aid. It is used here in the context of distress caused by a creditor who seized
a widow's children to repay a debt. Significantly, an old biblical exhortation warns creditors not
to keep garments in distraint overnight; and it notes that God will come to the poor person's
rescue if he "cries out" (yitz'ak) to Him (Exod. 22:24-26; and cf. w. 20-22). In 2 Kings 8:3,
the woman from Shunem mentioned in the haftarah has become impoverished and "went to the
king [of Israel] to complain [litz'ok:, lit., "cry out"] about her house and farm," which had been
seized in her absence. One may thus appeal to a concerned party (like Elisha), the king, or even
God for help. The negative scenario is conveyed by lob: "I cry ['etz'ak], 'Violence!' but am not
answered; I shout, but can get no justice" (lob 19:7).
According to tradition, this "certain woman" was the wife of the prophet Obadiah (Rashi).
a creditor is coming In distress, ancient Israelites might sell their children to creditors. A
similar situation is envisioned in the Covenant Code (Exod. 21:7), where special provisions are
set for the manumission of a daughter sold as a handmaid. In other formulations, an Israelite
might "give himself over" to a kinsman but only be subject to distraint (with his children) until
the lubilee year (Lev. 25:39-41).
According to the situation reported in Nehemiah 5, severe economic conditions forced par-
ents to sell their children and pawn their property to creditors. But when Nehemiah heard the
Several features link the readings. The first is the annunciation of childbirth. In thc parashah,
Abraham is at Mamre when he sees three visitors and immediately extends hospitality to them.
Immediately thereafter, the patriarch receives the divine promise that "at the same season [la-
mo'ed] next year [ka-'et hayyah]" Sarah will have a child (Gen. 18:14; cf. v. 10). There is no
statement that the annunciation to the barren woman is a reward for hospitality; but just this is
the explicit theme in the haftarah, in the episode about the woman of Shunem who is rewarded
for her hospitality with the announcement that "at this season [la-mo'ed ha-zeh] next year [ka-'et
hayyah], you will be embracing a son" (2 Kings 4:16). A significant difference marks the fate of
the two children. The child of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, is subsequently bound on an altar by
his father at God's command, but is not slaughtered; a ram serves as his substitute (Genesis 22).
By contrast, the son of the Shunammite woman dies in childhood of unexplained causes, though
he is eventually restored to life through Elisha's miraculous intervention.
Some of the asymmetries between the two biblical units (Genesis 18 + 22 and 2 Kings 4:
8-37) were narrowed by rabbinic interpretation. One significant factor was the tradition that
Isaac actually died upon the altar but was revived.8 This was a decisive development in the per-
ception of a link between the texts. The midrash Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer makes this quite plain.
In chapter 31 of that work, treating the so-called Tenth Trial of Abraham, the Binding of Isaac,
For a discussion of the contents of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall contents,
historiography, and theology, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted
in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah readings taken from the Book
of Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah depicts the last days of David, before his death, when he was "old, advanced
in years." The scene is set at the beginning of the Book of Kings, though it is more common to
find the death of a major figure at the conclusion of a book or cycle of traditions. Moses dies at
the end of Deuteronomy, and the point is noted in losh. 1:1; loshua dies at the end of the Book
of loshua, and the event is restated in ludg. 1:1; and Saul dies at the end of 1 Samuel 31, with a
brief transitional notice of it in 2 Sam. 1:1. Presumably the author of the Book of Kings wished
to make a point by his decision to defer the death of David to the beginning of 1 Kings. With
David still alive, the Book of 2 Samuel ends with his purchase of the site in lerusalem where
Solomon will build the Temple after his accession to the throne (see 1 Kings 6-7). The end of
David's reign is wracked by intrigue and dissension. The haftarah records the scheming for the
crown by Adonijah and by the backers of Solomon—even as the king's blood turns cold and he
lays with Abishag the Shunammite for warmth (1 Kings 1:1-4). It seems that David could never
escape the plots ofhis sons and advisers.
The scenes are centered around different pairs: (A) David and Abishag (in the prologue); (B)
Nathan and Bathsheba and (B') Nathan and David (in the middle sections); and (A') David
and Bathsheba (in the epilogue). From this perspective, the narrative has a ring structure, being
balanced in its outer (A/A') and inner (B/B') frames. Noting this compositional feature (and
the fact that A pairs David with Abishag, while A ' pairs him with Bathsheba), we may further
observe that the central episode is C, the main encounter between David and Bathsheba, with
Abishag present (1 Kings 1:15-21). This is the pivotal scene of the narrative. As in A, C also
characterizes David as zaken (old [v. 1, 15]); but whereas the text initially says that the king did
not know the Shunammite maiden (v. 4), the legitimate wife now tells her husband that he does
not know that Adonijah has claimed the throne (v. 18).
The central episode thus includes a critical moment of awareness that leads toward the conclu-
sion—when David guarantees Solomon's succession to the throne. In this regard, Bathsheba's
language is immensely suggestive, for when she informs the king of the coup, she says 'adoni
ha-melekh, "my Lord the king." This phrase not only (ironically) echoes the words of the courtiers
who tell'adoni ha-melekh that a young lass would keep him warm (1 Kings 1:2), but also (wittily)
juxtaposes it to the announcement "yet now }adoni-yah malakh [Adonijah has become king]" (v.
18a). In a final play on this language, Bathsheba gratefully accepts David's oath and says: "May
my Lord King David ['adoni ha-melekh david] live [yehi] forever" (v. 31). This final proclama-
tion provides a triumphant balance to Nathan's report (v. 25) that the traitors have proclaimed:
"Long live King Adonijah [yehi ha-melekh adoni-yah]!"
Clearly, the narrator is a master of intonation—binding and counterposmg episodes with
consummate skill. The threads linking the verb shava' (to swear an oath) with Bathsheba provide
further evidence for the subtle texture of this haftarah.
David's oath to Bathsheba is instructive for another reason. The phrase "the L O R D . . . who
has rescued me" (1 Kings 1:29) gives insight into popular Israelite piety. In liturgical contexts,
COMMENTS
1 Kin^s 1:2. -wait upon Your Majesty Literally, "stand before ('a-medah lifnei [the king])."
In royal contexts, the idiom means to "serve at court." Compare the courtiers who "were serv-
ing" Rehoboam ('omedim lefanav) and giving advice (1 Kings 12:8; for the variant 'omedim }et
penei, see v. 6).
6. bom afterAbsalom Thus, Absalom having died, Adonijah was David's oldest living
son [Transl.].
7-8. loab is the longtime faithful commander-in-chief of David's forces (2 Sam. 8:16),
who now follows Adonijah; Benaiah served David as head of the elite Cherethite and Pelethite
guard (2 Sam. 8:18). After killing loab on Solomon's instructions, Benaiah will become the new
commander-in-chief (1 Kings 2:28-34; cf. 1 Kings 4:4).
According to 1 Chronicles 24, Zadok is a descendant of Eleazar, eldest son of Aaron; Abiathar
of Aaron's younger son, Ithamar, through Eli. Both serve David and are frequently paired (cf. 2
Sam. 15:29, 35; 20:25). After Solomon's succession, Zadok replaces Abiathar (1 Kings 2:35),
while Abiathar is dismissed from office and banished to Anathoth—though not killed, because
of his loyal service to David (2:26-27). This fulfills an old oracle against the house of Eli (cf.
v. 27 and 1 Sam. 2:31). The pairing of Abiathar with Zadok in Solomon's cabinet (1 Kings 4:
4) seems to contradict this (it is missing in the Septuagint). But it is likely that the two priests
served together before Solomon dismisses Abiathar; and, in any case, by the time of the list,
Azariah has succeeded his father Zadok to the priesthood (4:2).
Nathan is the court prophet of David, who interpreted his sovereign's dream to build a Tem-
ple (2 Samuel 7); and it was he who boldly criticized the king for having Bathsheba's husband
Uriah killed on the front, after David committed adultery and impregnated her (2 Sam. 11:
1-12:10). After the child of this union died, by divine punishment (12:11-19), Solomon was
born to David and Bathsheba (v. 24).
The parashah and haftarah are verbally linked by the expression zaken ba} ba-yamim ("old, ad-
vanced in years") found in Gen. 24:1 and 1 Kings 1:1 and by the theme of old age. From one
perspective, Abraham and David represent two distinct models of aging. The "Abrahamic type"
enters old age with all the religious and moral integrity of his life. Thus we see that Abraham,
after the death of Sarah and the purchase of a family tomb (Genesis 23), "was now old" and
prepares for his family succession. He calls to his servant and has him "swear" (ve-'ashbi'akha)
that he will not marry Isaac to one of the Canaanite women but rather will procure a wife from
his homeland (Gen. 24:1-4). The patriarch is thus active in securing a future that will continue
the past. Indeed, being blessed by God "in all things" (ba-kol [24:1]), Abraham passes on "all"
(kol) he has to Isaac (25:5). This is his deposition before death, along with "gifts" to the chil-
dren of his concubines (25:6). Eliminating contentions over the inheritance and preparing for
new generations, Abraham dies "at a good ripe age [seyvah], old and contented [saved]" (25:8).
The harmony between seyvah and save'a suggests an integrated aging—a balance between one's
natural person and spiritual self.
David enters old age more catastrophically. Though he has shortly before boasted, in a poetic
testament, "Is not my House established before God? For He has granted me an eternal pact,
drawn up in full [ba-kol] and secured. Will He not cause all [kol] my success and [my] every
desire to blossom?" (2 Sam. 23:5) —he spoke too soon. The Davidic type of aging thus focuses
on physical debility and the schemes ofhis dependents for a stake in the future. Succumbing to
infirmity, he does not know what is going on. His courtiers seem self-serving, and his own presence
has all the frustrations of defunct power. A manipulator in his lifetime, David is manipulated in
old age. Stung by the disclosures of Nathan and Bathsheba, David "swears" (va-yishavac) that he
will fulfill his "former" oath (1 Kings 1:29-30). Giving final vent to his complex personality, he
gets hold of Solomon and gives him some advice for survival: observe the Torah, so that God
will fulfill his promises to the dynasty; and kill the renegade soldier Joab, in order to secure the
realm (1 Kings 2:1-6). 2 Theological and political sensibilities mark the man. David's "fullness"
(kol) is one of will and conceit, far removed from the noble "wholeness" of Abraham.
Quite different are the traditions about David's last days preserved in the midrash. In a sermon
apparently drawn from Midrash Tanhuma, but with some variation, the parallel phrase zaken ba}
ba-yamim leads to a positive connection between the acts of justice performed by Abraham and
David. 3 For their virtues, they merit the rewards of old age.
For Malachi's work and message and a consideration of his concerns, see the "The Book of Mala -
chi" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on
the other haftarah selection taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah evokes the ancient rivalry between lacob and Esau, as it focuses on the ongo-
ing historical strife between their descendants—Israel and Edom. Giving hope to a renewal of
Israelite national and religious destiny, the prophet stresses the priests' duty of piety and purity
before the Lord. Speaking in the fifth century B.C.E., the prophet reveals some aspects of religion
and culture in the early years of the Second Temple.
A forensic style dominates the haftarah. Among the notable features is the way the prophet
presents God's case through assertion and response. Typically, this form is expressed through
(A) statement; (B) query; and (C) proof—where the speaker in A and C is God, and in B is
Israel; in which a specific verb recurs (in A and B, and sometimes C as well); and in which B is
introduced by the word ve-'amartem (but you ask). The full pattern appears in Mai. 1:2 (where
the key verb is "love" ['ahav]), in 1:6 and 7 (where the key verbs are "scorn" [bazah] and "defile"
|ga'al]), and in 3:8. All the major themes and contentions of the book are dealt with through
this rhetorical structure. While other prophets cite comments of the addressee as part of the ar-
raignment (cf. Isa. 28:15-16; 49:14; Jer. 2:23, 25, 35; and Hag. 1:2), Malachi's style is unique
in form and intensity.
Equally compelling is the way words are reworked by the prophet in order to create rhetorical
echoes and repetitive variations. A characteristic example is the way the term for divine "profana-
tion" (mehallelim) in Mai. 1:12 counterpoints the earlier call to "implore" God's favor (hallu [1:
9]). It also anticipates the subsequent rebuke of the people's offering of "sick" animals (holeh [1:
13]) in the shrine. Another case of rhetorical intensification is created by the variations on the
letters h/n/m in the words viyhonnenu (will He be gracious? [1:9]), hinnam (to no purpose [1:
10]), minhah (offering, oblation [1:10, 11]), and nihat (stoodin awe [2:5]).
N o less dominant is the verb nasa' (raise up). The nominal form massa? names Malachi's "pro-
nouncement" (1:1); whereas its verbal forms convey a broad range of features. For example, in
Mai. 1, the question is posed: ha-yissa' mikkempa-nim, "will He accept any of you?"—with refer-
ence to God's acceptance of the false worship. The question is obviously rhetorical. The priests
are warned that their sullied sacrifices will be heaved back like dung—ve-nasa} Jetkhem 'ala-v, "and
you shall be carried out to its [heap]" (2:3). That is, God will not raise His face to the offerings
in favor, and those who bear the animals' offal will carry the offending priests with it to the dung
heap. 5 Another use of this terminology occurs in 2:9. The prophet accuses the priests of "partiality
i n . . . rulings," using the expression nose'impa-nim ba-tomh to make his point.
On closer inspection, it appears that the combination of the verb nasa' (raise up, carry, ac-
cept) with the nounpa-nim (face) alludes ironically to the Priestly Blessing in Num. 6:23-27.
In it, the faithful priests are bidden to bless the people with divine favor (yissa* YHWHpanav:,
lit., "the L O R D will lift His face"). Other terms from this sacred performance echo in Malachi's
rebuke as well. Indeed both the promise of divine graciousness (vi-yhunneka) and blessing
{yeva-rekhekha) through invocation of the holy name (shemi, "My name") are inverted; for God
will not give favor (vi-yhonnenu [Mai. 1:9]) to those who defile His name (shemi [v. 6]), but
will turn their priestly "blessings \birkhotekhem\ into curses" (2:2). Moreover, if the ancient
priests prayed that the Lord would "shine \ya,er\ His face" upon the faithful and "be gracious"
iyi-yhunneka) to them, Malachi now gives these words a tinge of doom—for since the priests
"ignite" (tn'iru) the altars "falsely" (hinnam), the prophet announces that God will turn their
blessings into curses (ve-'a-roti [2:2]). A more biting denunciation could hardly be made. The
perversity of the priests is lambasted through the very words they were given in sacred trust.
Malachi's rebuke is thus more than a prophetic critique. It is an anti-blessing—a slandering of
the slanderers in their own words. 6
COMMENTS
Malachi 1:1.Apronouncement Hebrew massaoften translated "burden" on the assumption
that this was the word the prophet had to "carry" to the people (Rashi). The term refers to prophecy
(Ibn Ezra) and is used to indicate the taking up of a speech (Num. 23:7, 18; 24:3).
2. accepted Hebrew va-'ohav, "I loved" (OIPS). This term continues the theme of favor
for lacob, as against the hatred and disfavor of Esau. In this context, God's love is expressed
through the giving of the land (Rashi; Kimhi).
4. the •region of wickedness Hebrew gevul rish'ah. This negative designation (rish'ah) may
be a punning inversion of Edom's byname Seir (se'ir).9 Ezekiel (35:6) voiced his curse of Edom
by a pun as well, saying that 'edom will be turned to da-m (blood). Obadiah 1:5 alludes to both
motifs when he warns that Edom will be "utterly destroyed" (nidmeitah) and that the plunderers
ofEsau-Seir will "leave" {yash'im) virtually nothing.
6. a son should honor his father The terms of this passage (father-son; master-slave;
honor-reverence) recur throughout the book and have extended overtones. The father-son pair
alludes to the divine-human relationship (cf. Mai. 2:10; 3:17); the master-slave pair alludes to the
divine-worshiper relationship (3:14, 18); and the honor-reverence pair sets the terms of positive
piety against which the language of scorn and curse is counterposed, often through puns (cf.
mom\ "reverence"; and me'emh, "curse," in 2:2).
13. ccOh, 'what a bother]" The NIPS translation of Hebrew matla'ah is a complex inter-
pretation, apparently drawing from several strands of medieval commentary. On the one hand,
Kimhi and Abravanel (following the Targum) suggest that the people proclaim that the offering
is a tela'ah, a great "weariness" or "burden" for them economically (cf. Exod. 18:8) —and thus
they "degrade it" (hippahtem Joto). On the other, Ibn Ezra proposes that the ma- prefix of the
noun matla'ah is really the interrogative particle mah, "what" (with final heh elided; cf. Exod. 4:
2, mazeh [ketiv:, mah zeh, keri] be-yadekha, "what is that in your hand?"). Hence the people ap-
parently say, "What is the loss?" (viz., how is this a loss to God?) —and therewith diminish the
value of the sacrificial offering. NIPS has combined features of both interpretations. The sense
of degradation results from taking hippahtem as something worthless as the wind (cf. Songs 2:
17),a mere cipher (cf. Exod. 9:8).
Alternatively, the expression ve-hippahtem }oto may be understood as "puffing up" the offer-
ing in order to make it appear fat (so Abravanel). Artificial fattening of animals is mentioned
in the Talmud; see B. Baba Metzia 60b, 'ein mesharbetin }et ha-behemah, "one may not give the
animal [the appearance of] stoutness" (and Rashi explains that this means filling the bladder
HAFTARAH FOR TOLEDOT 26
with liquids to give it a bloated look). All these interpretations assume that the object J oto, "it,"
refers to the animal. But an old rabbinic tradition regards this word as a euphemistic "correc-
tion" of the scribes, introduced in order to soften the theologically more offensive }oti, "Me." 10
This assumes that the point of the idiom is to give disrespect to God—to "blow Him off," so
to speak. But this hypothetical reversion seems to be a midrashic interpretation of the words. In
point of fact, the pronoun object J oto best refers neither to God or the animal but to the altar,
as is clear from verse 12.
Will I accept it Hebrew ha-'ertzeh }otah (cf. v. 8). This is one of many priestly idioms used
by the prophet. It is particularly effective here, where the prophet derides improper sacrifices.
Leviticus 1:3 indicates the proper procedure whereby an offerant shall gain "acceptance in his
behalf" (li-rtzono) for an offering, and Lev. 22:17-22 and 25 explicitly say that animals given to
fulfill vows will not be acceptable if they are blemished and have a defect (moshhat). This is the
background for Malachi's denunciation of those who cheat and offer a defective animal (mosh-
ha-t) to fulfill their vows (Mai. 1:13). God will not accept them (lo}yerotzu). Earlier prophets
used the idiom to express rejection of certain offerings (see Mic. 6:7; Jer. 6:20). For a positive
postexilic usage, see Isa. 56:6-7.
Malachi 2:4. My covenant with Levi The priest is exalted for the perfection of his ser-
vice and reverence for God's name—the opposite of the present situation (cf. 1:6). The precise
"covenant" is not certain. Numbers 25:12-13 refers to a pact with the descendants of Phinehas.
As here, a covenant of peace is mentioned; but the present text has the whole tribe of Levi in
mind (note the variant "covenant of the Levites" in Mai. 2:8), and not a single line. Abravanel
construes the reference to Levi to mean "the one" of Levi, that is, Aaron. This permits a har-
monization with Num. 25:12-13. Jer. 33:21b also considers the priestly covenant to be with
the whole tribe. 11
6. Proper rulings See Hag. 2:10-13 ("Seek a ruling from the priests") [Transl.]. Hebrew
torat'emet; literally, "the Law of truth" (OJPS). The role of instruction is emphasized here and in
verse 7. Instruction in priestly matters is found in Lev. 10:10-11. Deuteronomy 17:8-10 extends
the role of the priests to jurisprudence. Ezekiel combines both functions (Ezek. 44:23-24). The
tribe ofLevi receives the blessing of instruction in Deut. 33:8 and 10.
7. a messenger of the LORD ofHosts The exalted purity of the priests gave them the status
of a mal'akh, a "messenger" or "angel" of God. Perhaps this designation was due to their role
as (inspired) instructors of Torah. According to the divine initiation of Joshua, as envisioned by
Zechariah, that High Priest was even promised a heavenly status, among the "attendants" of the
divine court, if he kept God's charge and sacred service (Zech. 3:1-7). It is hard to know whether
R. Yohanan is a strong or soft advocate of this position, when he midrashically construes the phrase
kimaPakh YHWH tzeva'ot hu} (Mai. 2:7) to mean that the priest is "like an angel \ke-maPakh~] of
the Lord of Hosts" (B. Mo'ed Katan 17a). Other midrashic homilies are unequivocal. R. Simon
taught that Phinehas, the priest, was an angel in fact: for "when the Holy Spirit descended upon
him, his face was irradiated like flaming torches" (see Leviticus Rabbah 1, end).
The illumination of the priest's face is an image of mystical transfiguration and recalls the
hymn celebrating the splendor of the High Priest's face when he emerged from the Holy of Holies
on Yom Kippur. This moment is recited at the end of the Musaf'Avodah service. In the version
preserved in the Ashkenazic rite, 12 we read that "the countenance of the [High] Priest" was "like
the brightness of the vaulted canopy of heaven" or "as the lightnings flashing from the splendor
of the Hayyot [Creatures bearing the Divine Throne]." (In the Sephardic and Avignon rites, the
comparisons are to gemstones and cosmic forces.) 13 But such versions of priestly luminescence
are ancient. They already occur in Ben Sira's panegyric to the High Priest Simon (son of Onias)
in the second century B.C.E. (Ben Sira 50:5-15). The imagery was probably transmitted to the
Middle Ages via such compositions as "Truly, H o w Splendid" by Yosi ben Yosi, the great syna-
gogue poet of the Land oflsrael (fourth-fifth century c . E . ) . 1 4
A link between the haftarah andpamshah is established at the outset. According to Malachi, God
announces His preference for lacob, whom God has "loved [NIPS: accepted]" ('ahavti), and He
shows that love by condemning Edom to destruction (Mai. 1:2-3, 4-5). This inequity echoes
Rebekah's parental "love" (Johevet) for lacob (Gen. 25:28) in the Torah portion, and the oracle
that the younger "nation" in her womb would supercede the elder twin (Gen. 25:23). Attentive
readers of the haftarah could therefore infer from the pronouncement of Edomite doom the
continued fulfillment of the Pentateuchal promise—and thus find some consolation, if only in
the downfall of Israel's hated enemy.
Verbal connections between the Pentateuchal and prophetic passages were also observed by
the ancient Rabbis. In Midrash Genesis Rabbah (63:14), the phrase "Esau spurned [va-yivez]n
(Gen. 25:34; root b-z-h) is linked to Esau's "region of wickedness ['rish'ah]" in Mai. 1:4 through
an interpretation of Prov. 18:3 (which uses buz, "derision," alongside msha"wicked man"). 15
The three divisions of Scripture (Torah, Prophets, Writings) are thus combined to teach one truth:
the advent of the wicked (Esau-Edom) brings physical plunder (buz) and cultural derision.
The historical resonance of such homilies becomes evident when we recall that, from the second
century c.E. on (specifically, from the time of Hadrian's edicts and the revolt at Bethar, 132-135
16
c.E.), Edom was a symbol for Rome. Thus R. Simeon bar Yohai interpreted "the voice of lacob"
and "the hands of Esau" in the pamshah (Gen. 27:22) with reference to the cry of suffering at
Bethar, when lews were slaughtered at Roman hands. 17 And the promised destruction of the
"wild oxen [re'emimY of Edom in Isa. 34:7 was interpreted by Rabbi Meir (second century c.E.)
to allude to Rome (romiyim). 18 In a homily on the oracle about the "two nations \shneigoyimY
in Rebekah's womb (Gen. 25:23), we are told that this predicts "two proud [ge'imY kingdoms
(the lews, typified by Solomon; and the Romans, typified by Hadrian) and that one of the "two
[.shnei]" will be "rejected [san'uy]." By invoking Mai. 1:3 (san'eti, "I have rejected"), the preacher
informs his audience that the hated one is Edom-Rome (Genesis Rabbah 63:7). 19
The theme of eschatological hope underlies other midrashic expositions linking the pamshah
and haftarah. The repetition of God's love for lacob in Mai. 1:2 is made to teach that though
Esau was born first (Gen. 25:25), and thus legally entitled to a double portion of the inherit-
ance (Deut. 21:17), only lacob will merit reward in this world and the next. Thus, the historical
competition of the twins in this world will be resolved in due time by God. The allusion to an
ultimate victory over "Rome" may reflect feelings of this-worldly resignation by the lews of
the third and fourth centuries; 20 but even if this is so, the lewish identification of Rome with
Christianity (for papal Rome was heir of the Caesars as a "holy empire" into the Middle Ages)
gave this passage polemical potential. 21 Talmudic legends of the Edomite foundation of Rome
were also exploited in medieval histories (like thc Josippon and Sefer ha-Tashar),22 in ways that
reinforced lewish hopes that Israel was the beloved son and would be vindicated and the hated
aggressor would come to naught. Such feelings were reiterated in numerous sermons. According
to Rabbi loshua ibn Shu'eib (Spain, fourteenth century c . E . ) , lews could rest assured in God's
promise of love for Israel. 23 The terrors of Edom could be withstood, for lacob's covenantal
destiny was divinely assured.
ASHKENAZIM HOSEA12:13-14:lC)
For the haftarah for Va-yetze' for Sephardim, see the next haftarah.
For the life and times of Hosea and a consideration of his prophetic message and theology, see
"The Book of Hosea" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the remarks on the other haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of
Biblical Passages").
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YETZE' (ASHKENAZIM)' 28
Hosea 12:13-14:10 opens with a reference to Jacob's flight to Aram after deceiving his
brother Esau and to his service there for his wives Leah and Rachel (Hos. 12:13). This allusion
affirms a continuity between the narrative of the pa-mshah and the subsequent history of the
nation. The prophet emphasizes the iniquity of the people of Israel, despite divine providence,
and threatens them with God's punishment. A great appeal for repentance climaxes the haftarah.
The prophet Hosea was active in the north ("Ephraim") during the reign of King Jeroboam II
(784-748 B.C.E.).
The diversity of content and literary form suggests that the various portions of this haftarah
were originally distinct rhetorical units. For example, Hosea 12:13-15 which begins the reading
is actually the concluding section of a larger retrospective dealing with Ephraim, the patriarch
Jacob, and similarities between events in the patriarch's life and current national deeds (see
Hosea 12). But even this unit is disjointed, and commentators have long puzzled over the links
between verse 13, dealing with Jacob's flight to Aram and his labors there for his wife; verse
14, dealing with the Exodus from Egypt and prophetic guidance; and verse 15, dealing with a
judgment upon Ephraim for its sins. In the present context, these verses serve as the prologue
to the haftarah, along with the ensuing proclamation against Ephraim's apostasy in 13:1-3. This
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YETZE'(ASHKENAZIM)'29
threefold structure of divine providence (with emphasis on the Exodus), Ephraimite sin (with
emphasis on Baal worship), and divine punishment (through violent dooms) recurs in the ma-
terials collected in Hos. 13:4-14:1. Having substituted a subversive religious history for God's
providential guidance, the nation is threatened with dire punishments.
The effect of concluding these proclamations of doom with an exhortation to repent is
twofold. It reverses the negative tenor of the haftarah and injects a tone of hope into the se-
quence of sin and punishment. The announcement of new spiritual possibilities thus erupts
unexpectedly, breaking the cycle of recriminations through the act of repentance. In turning
from the false gods of nature and politics, the people may be revived by the true source of life
and sustenance.
This climax is dramatized through a series of verbal echoes. These link the beginning and end
of the haftarah in a striking manner and give it theological coherence. For example, Ephraim's
early exaltation (nasa} hu} [Hos. 13:1]), perverted through pride and apostasy, will be divinely
healed through a repentant turning to God to "forgive \tissa}] all guilt" (14:3; verbal stem nasa').
In like manner, the divine "plagues [devarekha]" of death for sin (13:14) will be reversed when
Israel takes "words [deva-rim]" of confession and returns to God alone (14:3). Then Israel will
not be destroyed "like dew [tal] so early gone" (13:3) —but will be nourished by God Himself,
who "will be to Israel like dew [te/]" (14:6).
COMMENTS
Hosea 12:13. Thenjacob had toflee This is the punishment mentioned in 12:3 [Transl.].
It continues the theme of lacob's biography, begun in w. 4 - 5 (Rashi).
14. Through a prophet The prophet is Moses, and this is the first attribution of the title
to him. The designation of Moses as the prophet who brought Israel from Egypt and guarded
(;nishmar) her in the desert may be a polemical rejection of the Pentateuchal tradition found in
Exod. 23:20, according to which God sent an angel to guard the people (lishmorekha) in their
wanderings. By contrast, Amos speaks of God's exclusive act of deliverance (Amos 3:1).
In postexilic sources there is a further reference to the "angel of [God's] Presence" as the one
who delivered Israel from Egypt (Isa. 63:9; cf. Deut. 4:37), but the ancient versions polemically
rejected this reading and construed the verse to indicate that only God delivered the nation—no
messenger or angel was involved. This topic recurs in the Midrash (cf. Sifre Deuteronomy 42 and
325). 2 The emphatic proclamation in the Passover haggadah averring that God alone performed
the redemption with his great and exclusive power, and "not by an angel and not by a messenger,"
underscores the ongoing vibrancy of the issue.3
15. cast"hiscrimes upon him Hebrew ve-da-mav 'alavyittosh-, literally, "held him liable for
his bloodguilt." The idiom for bloodguilt is da-m/da-mim + preposition (W or be, "upon" or
"against"). Compare Deut. 19:10 and 2 Sam. 1:16 (with W); Lev. 20:9 and 11-13 (with be).4
The use of the verb yittosh with the sense of "hold accountable" is unusual, since it commonly
means "to abandon." Presumably, the prophet means that God will leave the blood upon the
guilty one, thereby holding him accountable.
Hosea 13:1. When Ephraim spoke The prophet surveys the history of the northern king-
dom, from its rise to preeminence, to its physical and spiritual collapse. Because of their practice
of Canaanite worship and pride in their own accomplishments, the people of Ephraim rejected
their divine savior and faced destruction. The theme of pride as leading to rejection of God is a
feature of Deuteronomic sermons (see Deut. 8:11-14; 32:15). Along with other shared terms
and themes, this motif supports the opinion that Hosea and parts of Deuteronomy derive from
common northern circles.5
piety Hebrew retet occurs only here. It has the sense of trembling. Hence, as the object
of "spoke," the noun may be construed as having the metaphoric sense of pious fervor or awe
10. Where now is your king) NJPS interprets }ehi here as a form of the interrogative
"where?" (Rashi; Kimhi). The translation captures the overall sense of the passage (which paral-
lels the two pairs king/chieftains and king/officers), but its rendering goes against the cantillation
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YETZE'(ASHKENAZIM)'31
notes and normal Hebrew syntax (construing be-khol 'arekha ve-shoftekha as "the chieftains in all
your towns").
Hosea 14:1. Samaria must bear herjyuilt Hebrew te'sham Shomron. The verbal stem
'asham also occurs as a biform of the stem shamam, "ruin" or "destruction." Compare Ezek. 6:
6, whereye'shmu is combined withyehervu ("smashed and annihilated"). 15 Thus Hos. 14:1 may
mean "Samaria shall be destroyed" (so Ibn Ezra; Kimhi; R. Eliezer of Beaugency; and Tanhum
ha-Yerushalmi). Compare Hos. 5:15 and 10:2. 16
2-4. Counterpointing the preceding oracles of doom, Hosea calls upon the nation to
repent. The cluster of elements includes: (1) the recognition of sin and its consequences (v. 2b;
4); (2) repentance (v. 2a); (3) confession and appeal to mercy (v. 3); and (4) rejection of past
practices and the decision never again to engage in them (v. 4, 9). It is noteworthy that this
fourfold structure anticipates the teachings on repentance formulated by R. Saadiah Gaon 17 and
Maimonides 18 in the Middle Ages. A later spiritual disciple of Hosea, the prophet leremiah, also
reflects this structure in the confession found in ler. 3:22-25.
3. Take -words with you The prophet instructs the people with appropriate words of con-
fession (Ibn Ezra; Kimhi), appealing to them to ask God to "forgive all guilt" (kol tissa' 'a-von).19
This latter phrase alludes to the same attribute of mercy known from Exod. 34:7 ("forgiving
iniquity," nose' 'a-von) and is used in other citations of the divine attributes, especially in Psalms.
And accept what is^ood Hebrew ve-kah tov. The meaning is obscure. It may indicate a
request for God to accept the good deeds done (R. loseph Kara), or the good heart (Kimhi), or
even the words of contrition (Ibn Ezra). 20
Instead ofbulls we -will-pay The Hebrew is obscure. Many moderns read: "We shall pay
the fruit of our lips [i. e., confess]"—understanding^«nw (bulls) as peri (fruit of) + m.21 The
Septuagint also reads "fruit" (karpon). Thus prayer substitutes for sacrifice, confession being an
offering of contrition.
4. on steeds That is, we will no longer depend on an alliance with Egypt; compare 2 Kings
18:24 (Isa. 36:9); Isa. 30:16 [Transl.].
5-9. I will heal their affliction Or, "their backsliding" (meshuvatam). In response to
Israel's confession, God returns to His people and forsakes His wrath. The preceding images
of doom and drought (Hos. 13:7-15) are now replaced by figures ofbounty, and the reference
to backsliding is counterpointed by the language of repentance, return, and restoration. At the
onset, the prophet twice calls upon Israel to "return" (shuvah and shuvu) to the Lord (Hos. 14:
2-3). In response to this act, God promises that He will heal their affliction, "for My anger has
turned away \shav\ from them" (v. 5). The consequence will be total renewal: "They who sit
\yoshevei] in his shade shall be revived \yashuvu\' (v. 8).
9. Ephraim [shall say] According to some, the verse contains only the words of Ephraim
(see NIPS). Others see the initial confession to be that ofEphraim ("What more have I to do
with idols?"), and the sequel being God's promise of protection (Targum; Rashi; Ibn Ezra).
Still others construct an ongoing dialogue between Ephraim and God (viz., Ephraim: "What
more have I to do with idols?"; God: "I shall respond to him [Ephraim] and look to him";
Ephraim: "I become like a verdant cypress"; God: "Your fruit is provided by Me"). 22 Either
way, verse 9b brings the confession to a climax.23 The whole verse is a fitting conclusion to the
prophet's call. In it the main point is affirmed: spiritual fidelity leads to a thorough transforma-
tion of earthly life.
The prophet makes his point with wordplays on the name Ephraim (14:9). Thus the "bulls"
(parim) of substitute prayer (v. 3) will lead to a divine healing (evpa' [v. 5]) and flourishing
{yiphmh [v. 6]) of Ephraim's fruit (peryekha [v. 9]). 24 These positive tones counterpoint the
The haftarah echoes the content of thepamshah, referring to the flight o f j a c o b to Aram and
his service there for a wife. The prophet even uses similar vocabulary. Just as the Torah states
that Jacob "served" (va-yadvod) for Rachel (Gen. 29:20, 30) by "guarding" ('eshmor) Laban's
sheep (Gen. 30:31), Hosea remarks that Israel (Jacob) "served" (va-yadvod) for his wife by
guarding (shamar) sheep (Hos. 12:13). Clearly, features of a common tradition are manifest
here. But why the references in the first place? 25 For Hosea, Jacob's flight is punishment for
his prior acts of perversity (Hos. 12:3-4), and thus proof that Ephraim (in his day) is the de-
ceitful descendent of a deceitful ancestor. Moreover, we may infer that the prophet's reference
to Jacob's acts of servitude and guarding in Aram are prototypes or prefigurations of God's
redemptive care for the Israelites in Egyptian bondage, and His protection of them then and
thereafter (Hos. 12:14).
Later commentators pondered Hosea's words in just this vein, and gave full voice to the
ingratitude of the nation (Ephraim-Jacob) for all God's beneficences. Among these teachers, R.
David Kimhi emphasized this point. Picking up an insight of Ibn Ezra, he precedes his com-
ment on Ephraim's rebellion (Hos. 12:15) with an extended paraphrase of God's aid to Jacob
and Israel (v. 13-14):
Then Jacob"hadtoflee And they [the nation] do not remember the good that I did for
their ancestor, who fled from his brother Esau. There Israel servedfor a wife And even
when he was there, he was forced to serve Laban that he give him his daughter for a wife,
and I [God] was with him, and blessed him, and he returned from there with wealth and
possessions. Through aprophet [He] brought Israel upfrom Egypt Andl [God] also acted
graciously with his descendants, who descended to Egypt and were enslaved there, and
I sent them a prophet who brought them from Egypt with great wealth, and that was
Moses.And through a prophet they wereguarded They were guarded for forty years in
the desert by the prophet I provided them, and lacked for nothing. But they [the people]
do not remember [this beneficence] and anger Me with abominable deeds and [worship
of] no gods, as it is said, Ephraimgave bitter offense.
For all that, the hope of the haftarah goes further. It does not wish to end with denunciation and
doom. Rather, its intent is to prod its listeners to a new religious consciousness—to a confession
of sins and a wholehearted return to God. For Hosea, this means a renunciation of idolatrous
artifacts and the promise of political power. Renewal of Israel's being is a renewal of her aware-
ness that God alone is the source of all—in nature as in history.
For the haftarah for Va-yishlah for Sephardim, see next haftarah.
For the haftarah for Va-yetze' for Ashkenazim, see previous haftarah.
For a discussion of the life and times of Hosea and of his prophetic message and theology, see
"The Book of Hosea" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also
the remarks on other haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical
Passages").
The haftarah focuses on the sins of Ephraim (a designation for the northern tribes) and God's
transcendent love. The deceits of Ephraim are connected to the deceptions of the patriarch Jacob
at various stages of his life. Other features of Jacob's life, including his flight to Paddan-aram
(Gen. 28:10) and strife with an angel (Gen. 32:25-31), are also mentioned by Hosea. These
historical references all have a didactic function in the prophet's discourse.
The haftarah begins in the middle of Hosea 11, with a proclamation of Ephraim's "defec-
tion" from God (v. 7). This overture sets the tone of denunciation that marks the piece. It is
part of the prophet's overall rebuke of Israelite behavior during the reign of King Jeroboam II
(784-748 B.C.E.).
The dominant feature of the haftarah is its recurrent denunciation of Ephraim's religious and
moral behavior. Condemnations appear in each of the three parts. The first instance sets the
overall mood, judging Ephraim for continuous defection from God. Counterpointing this at-
titude, God's affection for His people is proclaimed: He cannot and will not destroy them like
the ancient cities of the plain (Admah and Zeboiim, ruined along with Sodom and Gomorrah
in ancient times; cf. Deut. 29:22). "For I am God, not man, the Holy One in your midst: I will
not come in fury" (Hos. 11:9). The mark of divinity is thus the ability to transcend wrath—to
love with unconditional grace.
God's "change of heart" is not induced by human pleading, but by a love that renews hope
through undeserved blessing. Indeed, it is precisely God's triumphal intervention in human life
that explains the figure of divine roaring (Hos. 11:10) in the context of mercy. Touching the
hearts of His subjects, God's roar inspires the nation with awe and draws them like birds to
their homeland (w. 10-11). With this, the people's resistance to a summons "upward" (v. 7) is
overcome. A prophecy of national restoration closes part 1.
After this vision of the future, the haftarah returns to the present. Ephraim is now condemned
for pursuing political alliances with Assyria and Egypt, and reminded of the conduct of lacob and
the fact that his actions were "requited" (Hos. 12:3). The people of Ephraim may also expect
punishment if they do not "return to your God, practice goodness and justice, and constantly
trust in your God" (v. 7). Like the preceding section, part 2 concludes with reference to a divine
reconciliation. In this case, restoration does not depend upon God's unilateral grace, but upon
the people's transformation of their spiritual and moral lives.
Shifts in temporal perspective also mark the final unit. Like its predecessors, part 3 begins
with a condemnation of Ephraim—though now for its desire for material gain and power (Hos.
12:8-9). Forgetting God in the present, the people are reminded that the Lord has been their
faithful God since the Exodus. They are then told that they will yet again dwell in desert tents,
as in ancient times. The context of denunciation suggests that this forecast is less a reward than
an announcement of the nation's return to a formative state, when they were without material
goods and utterly dependent upon God. The haftarah ends with a condemnation of the rites in
Gilgal and Gilead (v. 12).
The reference to lacob exhibits features in common with our Pentateuchal sources. But there
are also notable differences, and these suggest that Hosea drew upon traditions other than those
preserved in the Torah. Most obvious is the prophet's statement that "in the womb [beten]" lacob
"tried to supplant ['akav] his brother [}ahiv],^ while in manhood "he strove with a divine being
[sarah 'et \elohim], [indeed] he strove [va-yasar] with an angel and prevailed [va-yukhal]—the
other [the angel] had to weep and implore him [for release]" (Hos. 12:4-5a). These events recall
the account in Genesis, where it is stated that after "his brother ahiv]" Esau was born, lacob
emerged holding on to the "heel [/akev]^ of his twin (Gen. 25:26). They also hark back to lacob's
evening encounter at the labbok ford with a mysterious being called a "man." With the dawn,
when the assailant "had not prevailed [yakhol]" against lacob, he pleaded to be released and was
granted the request only after promising the patriarch a blessing (Gen. 32:25-27). This wish
was granted, and the patriarch was renamed: "Your name shall no longer be lacob, but Israel,
for you have striven [sarita] with beings divine ['elohim] and human and prevailed [va-tukhal]n
(v. 29). This phrase indicates that the "man" was in fact a "divine being," and this is also what
Hosea calls him. The common verbs for striving and prevailing reinforce the links between the
prophetic and patriarchal traditions.
More puzzling is Hosea's statement that "At Bethel [lacob] would meet him, there [sham] to
commune [yidabber] with him" (Hos. 12:5b). On the basis of the Pentateuchal traditions, this
statement presumably refers to lacob's divine encounter upon his return from Paddan-aram (Gen.
35:9-15). There, too, Bethel is designated by the adverb sham (35:15), and the communion is
designated by the verb dibber (35:13-15). The difficulty lies in determining who participated in
COMMENTS
Hosea 11:7. persists /In its defection from Me Hebrew telu'im li-meshuvati. Diverse
interpretations have been given to the verb and noun, yielding different religious attitudes. If
telu'im is derived from the verbal stem la'ah, with the sense of to "toil" or "struggle" repeatedly
over an action (cf. Gen. 19:11; Exod. 7:18; Prov. 26:15), it may take on the sense of persistent
or practiced action (Jer. 9:4). Such a derivation would go well with an interpretation of the noun
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YISHLAH' (ASHKENAZIM)—VA-YETZE' (SEPHARDIM) 36
meshuvah as denoting negative action (Ibn Ezra; cf. ler. 3:11). 1 In this case, the pronominal suffix
-ti (of meshuvati) refers to God ("Me"), and the defectors are the people.
Alternatively, the verb may be derived from the stem talah (passive participle, tnluy), meaning
to "hang" or be "betwixt" and thus yield the sense of being in suspense or indecision (waffling back
and forth; cf. Targ. Ion., Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Kimhi). 2 This interpretation does not assume the
same consistency of behavior as does the first one. It has been applied to meshuva-ti (interpreted
positively) with the sense of the nation's indecision about "returning to Me" (Rashi; OIPS) and
(negatively) in terms of the people's indecision about repentance "because of their defection and
rebellion against Me" (Kimhi). Any certain resolution is impossible. 3 Given Hosea's rhetorical
style, the ambiguities may be deliberate.
When it is summoned upward Hebrew "summoned" is a plural verb; literally, "they have
summoned him" (i. e., presumably referring to the prophets who have called Israel to heed their
message) (Rashi). OIPS: "And though they call them upwards." Hebrew "upward(s)" may
refer to God Himself by an abbreviated form of the epithet 'elyon (Exalted One) (Ibn Ezra), but
Rashi understands %l as a circumspect reference to the subject "concerning which Rasher calav]n
the prophets address the people. But they do not respond. This clause thus focuses on God's
persistent initiative to the nation and counterpoints the opening judgment.
8. Ephraim A common designation for the northern kingdom of Israel; here it stands
over against ludah, a designation for the south.
Admah, Zeboiim Cities of the Plain that were destroyed along with neighboring Sodom
and Gomorrah; see Gen. 10:19; 14:2, 8; Deut. 29:22 (but not mentioned in Gen. 19:23-29).
9. infury Interpreting be'ir as like ba'er or from be-'ir ("with fzV"; cf. ler. 15:8). Traditionally,
the puzzling form has been interpreted as an ellipse, meaning that God would not come destructively
"into the city [of Samaria]" (Abravanel andMalbim thus assume ba-'ir) or "into [any] city [other
than lerusalem for destruction]" (Saadiah Gaon, cited by Ibn Ezra and Kimhi; Rashi).
10.The LORD will roar An abrupt shift to the third person, with an unexpected use
of an image of terror. Some commentators regard the verse as a supplement, elaborating verse
11. Unusually, the roaring serves here to develop the theme of salvation. The verse presumably
refers to God's manifestation to the nation in exile, inspiring them with terror and the urge to
follow Him (Rashi; Ibn Ezra).
Hosea 12:1. surrounds Me -with deceit.. .guile That is, the deceit and guile they practice
on each other ( 1 2 : 8 - 9 ) is constantly noted by the L O R D [Transl.].
Butjudahstandsjirm-with God The meaning of md ("stands firm" [NIPS]; cf. Targum
and Rashi) is puzzling. If a positive meaning is conveyed, it contradicts verse 3—unless "ludah"
there refers to the patriarch, not the region. 4 Others interpret rad in terms of rebellion (Ibn
Ezra), and even consider verses 1 and 3 to reflect later ludean glosses. Given Hosea's overall
focus and the specific concern of this prophecy, one would have expected judgment only against
the north (Ephraim/House of Israel in v. 1; Israel [instead of MT: Iudah]/Iacob in v. 3). 5 The
present text is difficult.
faithful to the Holy One The phrase "faithful to the Holy One" may be translated "to
the Holy One, who is faithful" (OIPS). "Holy One" is rendered kedoshim ("holy ones," plural; the
singular kadosh, "Holy One," is found earlier in 11:9). This is unusual, despite the phrase 'elohim
kedoshim ("holy God") in losh. 24:19. Alternatively, if the judgment against ludah is negative,
the reference may be to its alliances with "divine beings" or angels;6 but if it is positive, the sense
would be God's continued loyalty to the holy ones of the nation. 7
2. a covenant withAssyria... oil is carried to Egypt That is, they foolishly depend on
alliances instead of on the L O R D ; compare 5:13; 7:11 ("Like a silly dove . . . they have appealed
to Egypt! They have gone to Assyria!") [Transl.].
10.1 -will let you dwell in your tents again That is, securely; see 2 Kings 13:5 [Transl.].
But the verb }oshivekha may have a more causative force, and the verse may be translated, "I
will yet again make thee to dwell in tents [,ohalim\^ (OJPS). Given Hosea's condemnation of
Ephraim's greed, this verse may be less of a reward than a reversal of fate, restoring Israel to its
ancient desert condition when it was dependent upon God. 13 The prophet adds that this will be
"as in the days of mo'ed," translated variously as "of old" (NJPS) or "appointed seasons" (OJPS).
The parallelism ohalim/mo'ed recalls the Ohel Moed or Tent ofMeeting in the desert.
11. When I spoke to the prophets NJPS translation adds "when" to the Hebrew text,
attempting to link the content of verse 11 to the previous verse (translated "in the days of old").
This sets the prophecies in some indiscriminate past but leaves it puzzling why they are mentioned
now. Alternatively, one may construe the passage to mean "I also spoke to the prophets" (OJPS).
This rendition has the advantage of separating the period of the desert (when God spoke from
the Tent) from the subsequent times of prophecy. This reading also provides a transition to the
judgment in verse 12.
spoke parables Hebrew,ada-mmeh. This passage has played a central role in the rabbinic
notion that the prophets spoke of God in figures or similitudes that do not depict His indescrib-
able essence. Among various midrashic sources, Leviticus Rabbah 1:1 gives classical expression
to the related theme that all the prophets (save Moses) perceived God through a dark or unclean
"mirror"; 14 that is, through the faculty of imagination.
Among classical medieval treatments, Maimonides cites Hos. 12:11 as his first proof-text when,
near the beginning of Guidefor the Perplexed (1:1), he begins to "make the following introductory
remarks" about parables: "Know that the key to the understanding of all that the prophets, peace
be unto them, have said, and to the knowledge of its truth, is an understanding of the parables,
The haftarah mentions various episodes found in the Book of Genesis, beginning with lacob's
birth and continuing through his return to the Land and the shrine of Bethel. Hosea empha-
sizes the theme of strife: lacob's struggle with Esau and his night combat with the angel at the
labbok ford. These actions follow a denunciation of Israel (the nation) as a people surrounding
God with "guile" (mirrnah [Hos. 12:1]). This recalls Isaac's use of the word to describe lacob's
act of deceit, when he stole Esau's blessing (Gen. 27:35); it is also alluded to by lacob himself,
when he reproves Laban for deceiving him with Leah (Gen. 29:25). 20 Given this strategic recur-
rence, one may conclude that the term mirrnah (and derivatives) is used to mark the continuity
of lacob's deceitful character. A typology is established between the acts of the patriarch and his
descendants. Such a family trait must be confronted in order to be eliminated. Toward this end,
the prophet calls upon the people to repent and perform good deeds. But the haftarah leaves
little hope that self-examination will result.
The entire brief Book of Obadiah (twenty-one verses) is the haftarah for xhepa-mshah. The proph-
ecy is one of judgment and promise. The judgment focuses on Edom, whose dispossession and
downfall is proclaimed for its overall arrogance, and for its perfidy against ludah during the siege
and destruction of the First Temple. Having participated in the plunder, they will be plundered
in turn: "As you did, so shall it be done to you" (Obad. 1:15). Most moderns concur that the
work was written sometime after the fall of lerusalem in 586 B.C.E. Nahmanides is of the same
opinion, 1 though other medieval commentators speculate on earlier and later dates.2
The promise is addressed to Israel. On the day of doom they will "wreak judgment on Mount
Esau" (Obad. 1:21), inheriting its lands as part of a national resettlement in the promised Land.
Thus, the renewal of the ancient rivalry between Esau/Edom and lacob/Israel will again result
39 HAFTARAH FOR VA-YISHLAH (SEPHARDIM)
in the loss of the elder brother's patrimony. The concluding promise that "dominion shall be the
LORD'S" gives Obadiah's prophecy of possession and liberation an unexpected, eschatological
character.
The distinct literary styles and topics of the book have led scholars to identify up to eight separate
divisions.5 But microanalysis overlooks the larger coherence of the work and its two related
themes: the judgment of Edom and the redemption of Israel. Moreover, a literary reading of
the whole shows striking correlations within and between the parts. This is particularly evident
if one focuses on the issue of sin and punishment. One will note how in Obad. 1:3 the prophet
condemns Edom, whose "arrogant heart. . . seduced {hishi'ekhaY him to vaunted pride, and
then later returns to the same terms when he says that Edom will be "duped" [hishi'ukha] by
his own confederates on its day of judgment (v. 7). This linguistic play suggests a punishment
measure for measure and draws together action and result in a striking way. In another example,
the prophet condemns Edom for returning the survivors (seridav) of Jerusalem to their captors
on the day of anguish (v. 14; NJPS: "those who fled"), and then alludes to this very point when
he prophesies that "no survivor [serid] shall be left of the House of Esau" (v. 18). Once again,
there is a verbal echo of the crime in the announcement of its punishment.
To reinforce the impression of inescapable doom to befall Edom, Obadiah plays on the enemy's
name. When speaking of the plunder to come, he echoes the name Edom with the rare verbal form
'eikh nidmeita, "How utterly you are destroyed!" (Obad. 1:5); and he further plays on the name
Edom in his ironic remark that usually robbers just take dayyam, their fill—but not so in this case,
when Edom shall plunder to the limit. Sound plays also occur in the arraignment of Edom's betrayal,
where Israel's day of "calamity" is referred to asyom }eidam or }eido (v. 13). An echo of the name
Edom can hardly be missed here as well.6 One may suspect that the image of "vintagers" (botzrim)
COMMENTS
Obadiah 1:1. The prophecy of Obadiah Literally, the reference is to a hazon, or "vision."
This term is elsewhere used where vision is not dominant (cf. Isa. 1:1). Sensing a general usage
here (Obadiah receives a "word" from God), Targum lonathan simply translates "prophecy."
We have received The plural form (shama'nu) is unexpected. Ibn Ezra suggested that
this reflects Obadiah's identification with other prophets like "leremiah, Isaiah, and Amos who
prophesied against Edom." The Septuagint here and the formulation of the oracle found in ler.
49:14 (sha-ma'ti) use the singular ("I have received").
3. You who dwell in clefts ofthe rock This image of living in a remote mountain fast-
ness, and thus beyond danger, portrays Edom's pride. The form shokhni (you who dwell) is an
old participial form with a genitive ending. It is followed here by a preposition (be-ha-gvei, "in
clefts"), as in Exod. 15:6 (ne'eda-ri ba-koah, "glorious in power") and elsewhere.7 The form also
occurs in construct chains, most notably in Deut. 33:16 (shokhnisneh, "Presence in the Bush"). 8
Ibn Ezra correctly observes that the image of a rocky dwelling in Obad. 1:3 is an implied simile
(i. e., "you who are like one who dwells," etc.).
You think in your heart,"Who can pull me down to earths This expression of pride is
comparable to the words of the king of Babylon in Isa. 14:13-14 ("Once you thought in your
heart, 'I will climb to the sky,'" etc.). But this king is "brought down" (humd, tumd [Isa. 14:11,
15]). Similarly, Edom's question ("Who can pull me down?" miyorideini) is answered in Obad.
1:4, "I [God] will pull you down" (Joridekha). Compare also the similar image in Amos 9:2,
stressing the impossibility of flight from God.
5-6. If thieves were to come This unit is marked by variations on rhetorical questions:
(1) verse 4: 'im ("should") + ve-'im ("[and] should") + the (unmarked) conclusion; (2) verse
5a: >im ("if") + >im ("if") + 'eikh ("howutterly") + ha-lo} ("wouldtheynot?"); and (3) verses
5b-6 :}im ("if") + ha-lo' ("wouldtheynot") + }eikh ("How thoroughly"). These repetitions give
dramatic force and intensity to the prophet's word.
5. How utterly you are destroyed! Hebrew }eikh nidmeita. The verb is from the stem
da-mah, with the meaning "to be cut off or destroyed"; compare Ibn Ezra (who adduces ler. 47:
5) andTanhum ha-Yerushalmi (who adduces 2 Sam. 21:5). 9
6. How thoroughly •rifled NIPS parallelism "rifled . . . ransacked" is a figurative render-
ing of nehpesu . . . niv'u. Both verbs connote an intense search, and this aggressive searching
can connote plundering. On this view, the verb niv'u is derived from the stem ba'ah, meaning
"seek," as is common in Aramaic; but note Isa. 21:12 (cf. Ibn Ezra and Tanhum ha-Yerushalmi).
Alternatively, niv'u means "to be exposed" (and thus, derivatively, "to be plundered"). This sense
of the verb is suggested by Isa. 30:13, and this is also how Targum lonathan explained it in his
rendering of Obadiah 1:6 (cf. R. Eliezer ofBeaugency and Daniel al-Kumsi). 10
ransacked"hishoards Hebrew niv'u ma-tzpunav. In a similar oracle in leremiah 49, this
difficult phrase is rendered more simply as gilleiti }et nista-mv, "I [God] . . . have exposed his
[Edom's] place of concealment" (v. 10). This simplification suggests that the formulation in
Obadiah is the older of the two. However, there are diverse relations between the sources, and in
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YISHLAH (SEPHARDIM) 41
some cases the priority seems to go the other way (cf. Obad. 1:3 and Jer. 49:16). 1 1 It is therefore
best to assume independent development of these Edomite oracles. Commenting on the last
comparison, the ancient Rabbis drew similar conclusions: "Several prophets can use one style,
but no two prophets prophesy in the [very] same style" (B. Sanhedrin 89a).
7. Have planted snares Rendering w^zor as "snares" follows Targum Jonathan (relatedly,
cf. the Septuagint and Peshitta). Elsewhere the noun seems to refer to a wound (Hos. 5:13),
possibly due to beating or pounding. 12 Either meaning makes little sense in this context. There
is thus good reason to suppose that the ensuing phrase 'ein tevunah bo (He [Edom] is bereft of
understanding) is really a scribal gloss meaning "there is no sense to it [viz., the word w^zor]." 13
In itself, this phrase is without context and grammatically awkward.
9. Teman A city and region in Edom (southeast of the Dead Sea), used here to designate
Edom as a whole. It is regularly found parallel to Edom (Jer. 49:20) and even instead of it (Hab.
3 : 3 ) . A s a city, Teman occurs with Bozrah (Amos 1:12).
12-14. How could you This is apparently the force of the eightfold repetition of 'al fol-
lowed by a verb in the future tense. Rashi, followed by Kimhi, renders "you should not have";
Ibn Ezra renders "it was not befitting for you to."
15. The day ofthe LORD is at hand Compare the idiom in Ezek. 30:3 and Joel 1:15.
The "day of the LORD" was an anticipated time of judgment against Israel and the nations. 14 It
is first mentioned in Amos 5:18 and 20 and is usually depicted as accompanied by violent ter-
restrial and atmospheric disturbances.
16.you That is, the Israelites [Transl.].
17. holy That is, inviolate; compare Jer. 2 : 3 ("Israel was holy to the LORD, the first fruits
o f H i s harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty") [Transl.].
18.for the LORD has spoken Hebrew ki YHWH dibber. This formula not only gives di-
vine authority to the prophet's words (like ne'um YHWH, "declares the LORD"), but is used to
cite earlier prophecies at the time of their reapplication to new circumstances. In this case, the
reference is to the oracle against Edom recited by Balaam, in Num. 24:18f. The same terms for
dispossession and survival link the passages.15
19. the Ephraimite country and the district ofSamaria After the exile of the northern
tribes, the city and district of Samaria were occupied mainly by non-Israelites [Transl.].
20. Zarephath A town on the Phoenician coast, also mentioned in 1 Kings 17:9 and
Papyrus Anastasi I (thirteenth century B.C.E.) as being in the vicinity of Sidon. Traditionally, the
place has been identified with France (cf. Kimhi).
Sepharad The Aramaic form of Sardis, a city in Asia Minor, as evidenced by an Aramaic-
Lydian bilingual inscription. 16 Targum Jonathan and all later Jewish interpreters understood this
place as Spain. The Jews oflberian descent are called Sephardim on this basis.
21. For liberators shall march up This concluding allusion to the "liberators" (moshi'im)
of Israel, who will "wreak judgment [lishpot]" on the enemy, makes use of the old language of
saviors and judgment found in the Book of Judges (cf. Ihn Ezra). The liberators came to be
understood as the Messiah and his companions (Kimhi).
Thepamshah and the haftarah stand at two opposite points in the historical spectrum of relations
between Jacob/Israel and Esau/Edom. The Pentateuchal narrative continues the account of the
brothers' relationship that began with embryonic and natal strife and assumed consequential
ASHKENAZIM AMOS2:6-3:8
SEPHARDIM AMOS 2:6-3:8
For a discussion of the life and times of Amos and a consideration of his prophetic message and
theology, see "The Book of Amos" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the remarks on the other haftarah reading taken from his prophecies (listed in
"Index of Biblical Passages").
The prophet Amos thunders against the transgressions of Israel, denouncing their greed and
other sins. Among these are the crimes of selling "for silver those whose cause was just" and of
both "father and son" going "to the same girl" (Amos 2:6-7). Readers of thepamshah will call
to mind the transgression of Jacob's sons, who "sold Joseph" into slavery "for silver" (Gen. 37:
COMMENTS
Amos 2:6. For three transgressions.. .for four This graded sequence is a rhetorical
pattern of the x + 1 type. 8 The pattern is found elsewhere, followed by an enumeration of four
elements (Prov. 30:18-19, 21-23, 29-31). 9 It is preceded by seven others in Amos 1:3-2:5. In
45 HAFTARAH FOR VA-YIGGASH
those cases, basically one crime is emphasized. 10 In the present instance, seven transgressions
may be noted (see above). 11 According to an interpretation found in B. Yoma 86b (and followed
by such medieval commentators as Rashi, R. loseph Kara, Kimhi, Abravanel, and R. Eliezer of
Beaugency), the pattern of three/four in Amos means that God will forgive three offenses, but
not the fourth. 12 However, in no other case is the climactic item in contrast to the preceding
series; rather, the final one continues the sequence. 13
As a structuring device, the pattern of a triad plus a climactic fourth element organizes the
oracles of Balaam (Numbers 23-24), the temptations of Samson (ludges 16:6-20), and the
disasters that befell lob (lob 1:13-19). 1 4 The pattern of two and three triads plus a final element
organizes the creation account in Gen. 1:1-2:4 and the plague cycle in the Book of Exodus,
respectively. In the present case, Amos's oracle against Israel is the climactic feature of a 7 + 1
sequence. This pattern is found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Mic. 5:4; Eccles. 11:2) 15 and
also in Ugaritic and Phoenician sources.16
Because they have soldfor silver The expression may indicate either the bribing of judges
(already Ibn Ezra) 17 or the sale of persons into debt bondage on false charges.18 Ba-kesef is used
with the sense of"for the price of silver." On either interpretation, the charge is corruption.
And the needy for a pair of sandals This clause is stylistically linked to the preceding
one. Here, too, the issue is sale; only now the needy are sold ba-'a-vur na'alayim, for the price
of sandals. Once more the charge seems to be some type of corruption. The motif of "sandals"
seems to be a hyperbole, contrasting "silver" in the preceding clause (cf. the use of "sandal strap"
in Gen. 14:23). But some interpreters take the term literally, since sandals were used as probative
instruments in legal contexts "to validate arrangements by circumventing legal obstacles"19 (cf.
Deut. 25:9; Ruth4:7).
7.And make the humble walk a twisted course Compare Rashi, who understands the
phrase to mean that the weak turn from their path to a twisted one out of fear. Alternatively,
"turn aside the way of the humble" (OIPS). This may mean that there is a perversion of the legal
way of the humble (cf. Kimhi). 20 Since the same verb is used in exhortations against judicial
corruption (Exod. 23:6; Deut. 16:19), the present expression may be a charge of the same type.
Thus Amos's rebuke is that the powerful "pervert the way [of justice] of the humble" {yattu
derekh 'ana-vim). A similar idiom occurs in Prov. 17:23, "The wicked man draws a bribe out of
his bosom to pervert the course of justice" (le-hattot 'orhot mishpat).21
profaneMyholy 'name Hebrew, battel 'etshem kodshi. This is an early use of the expres-
sion, otherwise known in the later speeches of the priest Ezekiel (Ezek. 20:39; 36:20-22) and in
the Holiness Code (Lev. 20:3; 22:2, 32). 22 In these cases, cultic offenses desecrate God's name,
whereas the expression in Amos is in the context of moral perversions. In classical rabbinic sources,
hittul ha-Shem has the larger sense of profaning God's name by disgracing the lewish religion
through acts of immorality and falsehood. 23 In one remarkable case, Ezek. 20:39 (which speaks
of desecration_/or idolatry) is radically reinterpreted: "Go serve every one his idols . . . but My
holy name you shall no more desecrate" (Lev. R. 23:3). 24 The sin of desecration (which occurs
through public acts) is thus deemed graver than idolatry.
8.jyarments taken inpledjye The prohibition is already in the Torah (Exod. 22:25-26;
Deut. 24:17). 25 But these cases and others suggest that Amos objects to something more than
an object taken as security for a loan. Rather, the charge is against the confiscation of persons
(lob 24:9) or goods (Prov. 20:16) taken when a debtor defaults on a loan. 26 The sentiment
behind Amos's divine rebuke is unspecified. In Exod. 22:26, lenders are exhorted to return at
night clothing taken in distraint, as an act of compassion.
9-11. The divine beneficences are stated repeatedly in the first person, with the pronoun
J
anokhi ("I") dramatically emphasized in verses 9 and 10. God's guidance in history counterpoints
Israelite acts of faithlessness. Among these, Amos refers to God's raising up prophets and nazir-
HAFTARAH VA-YESHEV 46
ites. 27 The prophets symbolize obedience to the divine will as addressed to them; the nazirites
symbolize the voluntary assumption of an exceptional sacred discipline (including abstinence
from wine; cf. Num. 6:3-4).
14-16. The sequence of elements in verse 14 (mams, "flight"^ye'ammetz, "find strength";
gibbor, "warrior"; and lo'yimallet nafsho, "not save his life") is repeated in reverse in verses 15b-
16 (lo'yimallet nafsho, "shall not escape";'ammitz, "stouthearted";j , zMmw, "warrior(s)"-,yanus,
"run away"). 28
3:2. You alone have I singled out Hebrewyada'ti, "singled out," refers to covenantal
election; 29 the verb is used as a technical term in ancient Near Eastern treaties for recognition of
partners (see the earlier discussion).
3-8. The pattern of rhetorical questions rises to a crescendo. The pattern has a double
climax: first at verse 6, which completes the sequence marked off by the interrogative questions
introduced by the particles ha-(five times) + }im (two times). This sequence concludes by empha-
sizing that God is the cause of all misfortune. The second climax is at verse 8, which completes
the sequence with two rhetorical questions introduced by the word mi (who?). Bridging the
two is the clarification in verse 7 that God will not do anything until he reveals "His purpose" or
"counsel" (sodo) to His prophet. This clarification is introduced by the particle ki, "indeed."
From a rhetorical point of view, the reader is caught short by verse 7, since the particle ki
normally functions as the concluding element of a triple rhetorical question (of the ha-+ 'im
+ ki type). 30 In this case, ki does not complete the series but hammers home a new theological
pronouncement. It thus serves to set up a second climax, which underscores the inescapable
power of the divine word.
Taken all together, this unit functions as a legitimation of Amos's prophetic word. He will speak
because he must. His final words, "Who can but prophesy [mi lo,yinave,]}n (v. 8), thus contrast
sharply with the earlier charge that the people "ordered the prophets not to prophesy"—liter-
ally, "they ordered: 'do not prophesy [lo} tinave}u\\ m (2:12). The unit thus also functions to
distinguish Amos from earlier prophets. He will not be silenced.
A close verbal congruity links the sale of Joseph by his brothers in the parashah with Amos's
condemnation of unjust practices in the haftarah. According to the former, the sons of Jacob
"sold [va-yimkem] Joseph to the Ishmaelites for [be-] twenty pieces of silver [kesef]" (Gen. 37:
28); while according to the latter, the unjust "have sold [mikhram] for silver [be-kesef] those whose
cause was just [tzaddik; viz., an innocent person], and the needy for a pair of sandals" (Amos 2:
6). For close readers, this similarity suggested that Amos not only rebukes his contemporaries
for immoral practices but alludes to the grave sin of their ancestors in patriarchal times. Just
how early this identification was made is not certain, but a clear witness to this understanding is
already found in the Hellenistic work called Testament ofthe Twelve Patriarchs. According to the
Testament of Zebulun (3:2), Zebulun says that he and his brethren bought sandals for themselves,
their wives and children, with the silver received for the sale of Joseph. 31 A similar tradition is
found in the Targum (Yerushalmi 2) on this passage.
A more explicit reference is made to the passage in Amos in the Midrash Tanhuma Va-yeshev
2, 32 and the verse is cited verbatim in Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 38. This association between the
Genesis story and Amos's prophecy was undoubtedly reinforced by the rabbinic tradition that
epitomized Joseph as a tzaddik, or "righteous person" (cf. B. Ketubbot 111). On this reading,
Amos's words are construed to mean that "they" (the brothers) sold a tzaddik (i. e., Joseph) for
silver. Presumably, these various identifications account for the selection of Amos 2:6-3:8 as the
haftarah for Va-yeshev.
A remarkable sequel to this tradition is found in the apocryphal midrash known as Eleh
Ezkerah, according to which ten Sages were to be put to death by the Romans to atone for the
HAFTARAH VA-YESHEV 47
crime of the ten brothers who sold Joseph into slavery.33 A poetic version of this midrash is
recited during the Musaf service of Yom Kippur. According to that text, the Roman governor
tells the scholars about their ancestors "who sold their brother . . . for a pair of sandals" and
condemns them to vicarious death, thus complying with the stipulations of Exod. 21:16 ("He
who kidnaps a man—whether he has sold him or is still holding him—shall be put to death").
The divine words in Amos, which state that the transgression of selling a tzaddik was one that
would not be forgiven, may have contributed to the tradition that the ancient crime of the
brothers needed atonement. According to one midrashic tradition, though the penalty was paid
by the ten martyrs of old, the sin is requited "in every generation" and "is still pending." 34 The
synagogue poet Yannai reflects a similar notion when he says (in a liturgical poem on Genesis
37) that the "tribes of the righteous seed [zem'tzaddik] will have no [permanent] dwelling until
they be requited for selling the righteous one [tzaddik]." 35 Thus according to one tradition, the
exile was due to the ancient sin of the sale of Joseph.
For the contents and theology of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the remarks on the several haftarah readings taken from this book (listed in "Index of
Biblical Passages").
The haftarah begins abruptly, in medias res, with the remark: "Then Solomon awoke: it was
a dream!" (1 Kings 3:15a); it then goes on to report how the king went to Jerusalem, stood
before the Ark of the Covenant, and offered sacrifices there to the Lord (v. 15b). In its larger
narrative sequence, this notice concludes the preceding account of Solomon's dream at Gibeon,
where the king requests and receives divine wisdom to judge the nation (3:5-14); and it also
provides a transition to lerusalem, where the king performs an exemplary act of justice. Using
his divinely inspired wisdom, Solomon adjudicates a dispute between two prostitutes concerning
the maternity of a surviving child (3:15-27).
The abrupt reference to Solomon's awakening was undoubtedly chosen as the prologue to
the haftarah because the term for the arousal (va-yiykatz) of Solomon tallies precisely with the
one used for Pharoah's arousal (va-yiykatz) from a dream at the outset of the pamshah (Gen. 41:
4). The importance of royal dreams for national and individual destiny further connects the two
liturgical readings.
COMMENTS
1 Kings 3:15. He went tojerusnlem The king returned to Jerusalem from Gibeon, an
ancient cultic site where he had sacrificed and received a divine revelation (3:4-14). There was as
yet no centralized worship in Jerusalem. According to Deuteronomic tradition, this was to take
place when God gave rest to Israel from its surrounding enemies (Deut. 12:10-11). Reference
to this condition thus marks David's decision to build a Temple in Jerusalem (2 Sam. 7:1-2),
and Solomon refers to it in his negotiations with King Hiram of Tyre regarding construction of
the shrine (1 Kings 5:1s). 1
In Solomon's day, the Ark was in Jerusalem. It had been brought there by David in a grand
pageant (2 Samuel 6), having been captured by the Philistines when the Israelites took it from
the shrine of Shiloh into battle (1 Sam. 4:3-11). During Absalom's rebellion, David had the
Ark removed from Jerusalem, only to have Zadok subsequently restore it in an effort to realize
divine favor (2 Sam. 15:25). Solomon brought the Ark "from the City ofDavid, that is, Zion"
into the Holy ofHolies when the Temple was complete (1 Kings 8:1-9).
HAFTARAH MIKKETZ 49
16. and stood before him The text reveals features of legal protocol: (1) the standing of
the claimants before the judge (v. 16); (2) the claim of the plaintiff (v. 17-21); (3) the rebuttal
by the defendant (v. 22a); (4) the response of the plaintiff (v. 22a); (5) the summary of argu-
ments by the judge (v. 23); (6) the adjudication (here an ordeal, in the absence of witnesses [v.
24-25]); (7) the plea bargaining by the claimants (v. 26); and (8) the final settlement (v. 27). 2
This is followed by a statement of the inhibiting effects of publicizedjustice (v. 28).
Legal protocol certainly varied in different times and places. It is nevertheless interesting to
compare this civil case with the hypothetical situations of village courts presented in Deut. 21:
18-21 and 22:13-19. These include (1) allegations; (2) presentation of evidence; (3) counter-
statements by the contestants; (4) judgment by the court; and (5) public effects.
The foregoing bear a striking resemblance to the reported trial of leremiah for false prophecy.
From the precis, we may induce the following features: (1) arrest and laying of charges (ler. 26:
7-9); (2) convening of public trial (v. 10); (3) presentation of the argument by the plaintiff (v.
11); (4) presentation of the argument by the defendant (v. 12-15); (5) the appeal to witnesses and
their justifications (v. 16); (5) the presentation of counterarguments by friends of the court, with
precedents cited (v. 16-19); (6) the consideration of conflicting precedents (v. 20-23); and (7)
the final adjudication (v. 24). Compare the protocol presented in Ecclesiastes Rabbah 10:16.
27. she is its mother Solomon's adjudication involves a psychological "ordeal" and attention
to the mothers' responses (cf. Abravanel). According to talmudic tradition, Solomon's judgment
("Give the live child to her" etc. [v. 27a]) was confirmed by a heavenly voice [bat kol) from the
divine court (saying: "She is its mother" [v. 27b]) (see B. Makkot 23b). According to R. Samuel
bar Rav Yitzhak, it was "the holy spirit" that said: "She is its mother" (Genesis Rabbah 85:12). 3
28. divine wisdom Hebrew hokhmat 'elohim. Solomon thus had a divine gift "to execute
justice," much as he also had divine wisdom for composing parables (1 Kings 5:9-13) and an-
swering riddles (10:l-4a). The idiom of divinely granted wisdom is also used of supernaturally
talented artisans (cf. Exod. 35:30-35). God's gift of the "spirit of wisdom" in judgment became
a messianic ideal for Davidic kings (see Isa. 11:1-5). 4
The two liturgical readings are entwined by several features. At the verbal level, there is a tally
between the account of Pharaoh's arousal from his dream of the cows (va-yiykatz par'oh, "and
Pharaoh awoke" [Gen. 41:4]) and Solomon's reawakening from his dream-revelation at Gibeon
(va-yiykatzshelomoh, "then Solomon awoke" [1 Kings 3:15]). In both cases, this leads to a pub-
lic awareness that an individual is gifted with divine wisdom. Thus after his (symbolic) dream,
Pharaoh fruitlessly consults his court magicians, only to learn subsequently of "a Hebrew youth"
with proven skill in dream interpretation. After loseph decodes the dream, much to Pharaoh's
approval (Gen. 41:37), the king exclaims to his courtiers that this is surely "a man in whom is
the spirit of God \ruah }elohim\ (v. 38) and then directly praises loseph, saying that "there is
none so discerning [navon] and wise \hakham\ as you [kamokha]" (v. 39). In Solomon's case, the
king receives in a dream God's promise o f " a wise \hakham\ and discerning [navon] mind"—so
exceptional that "there has never been anyone like you [kamokha] before," nor will there ever be
another as wise again (1 Kings 3:12). This aptitude is fully demonstrated in his judgment of the
prostitutes, with the result that "all Israel" recognize that their king "possessed divine wisdom
[ihokhma-t }elohim\ to executejustice" (1 Kings 3:28). 5
Though both men are blessed with divine wisdom and discernment, each initially applies it to
a different realm: loseph decodes the hidden language of dreams; Solomon determines the truth of
conflicting legal testimony. We thus have two models whereby a mediator is solicited to resolve a
problematic case. In xhepamshah, it is the king's personal perplexity over the meaning of his dream
that needs clarification, and only he can acknowledge the validity or fitness of loseph's interpretation
(cf. Gen. 41:37). By contrast, the haftarah deals with an interpersonal dispute whose resolution
HAFTARAH MIKKETZ 50
depends upon the people's trust in the judge and his means of adjudication; consequently, only
the people (the litigants specifically, and society as a whole) can acknowledge the procedure and its
result (cf. 1 Kings 3:28). Trust in a mediator is thus a vital factor in the resolution of psychological
or social conflict. In the cases at hand, this trust is a function of demonstrated wisdom and skill.
Neither social standing nor high office can inherently bring it about.
ASHKENAZIM EZEKIEL37:15-28
SEPHARDIM EZEKIEL 37:15-28
For Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his prophetic message and theology, see "The
Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also
the various comments to the haftarah readings taken from his book (listed in "Index of Biblical
Passages").
The haftarah emphasizes the theme of national restoration, with specific focus on the promised
reunification of the northern and southern tribes, the renewal of the Davidic royal lineage, and
the reestablishment of the covenant between God and Israel. The overall progression in Ezekiel
37 is thus from physical revival and national ingathering (v. 1-14) to political unification and
spiritualrestoration (v. 15-28).
The haftarah is composed of two parts. The first involves a symbolic act performed by the
prophet, followed by an explanation of its significance; the second develops the themes of this
explanation. The symbolic act presages the unification of the tribes of Judah and Israel in the
homeland. The prophecy was delivered in exile, sometime after the destruction of the Temple
i n 5 8 6 B.C.E.
The first part of the prophecy is built around the structure of act, inquiry, and explanation. Its
central concern is national unification and the ascension of one king over all (Ezek. 37:15-22).
The subsequent reference to the purification of the people is thematically secondary (v. 23). The
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 37:16. O mortal Literally, "son of man." This phrase recurs repeatedly in the
book, and frequently as here: "and you, O son of man." 3 The phrase emphasizes the mortality and
earthiness of the prophet who, at his commission, beheld God transcendent in the heavens.
take a stick and -write on it Each stick has an inscription referring to Judah (representing
the southern tribes) or Joseph (representing the northern tribes) "and the Israelites associated with"
them (see Rashi). The symbolism of two staffs, one called Unity, the other Favor, is employed in
Zech. 11:7-14. To create the opposite effect of the joining of sticks by Ezekiel, Zechariah cleaved
the staff called Unity in two, "in order to annul the brotherhood between Judah and Israel."4
16-22. Ezekiel frequently dramatized his oracles through symbolic actions (see Ezek.
4:1-3, 9-12; 5:1-4; 12:3-6). The pattern of act-inquiry-explanation is common. 5 The query in
Ezek. 37:18 (mah }eleh lakh, "Won't you tell us what these actions of yours mean?") recalls the
formulation in 24:19. 6 In this instance, the action of the joined sticks symbolizes the unifica-
tion of the northern and southern kingdoms. 7 This was a hope expressed by prophets over the
centuries (Hos. 2:2; Jer. 3:18; 31:1-27).
17. joined together Hebrew le-'ahadim-, literally, "as a unity." See Rashi and Kimhi, fol-
lowing the Targum. For the idiom, see Gen. 11:1. 8
19. Iwillplace the stick ofjudah upon it This is an interpretative solution of ve-natati
}
otam 'alav }et 'etzyehudah. The syntax and the preposition create many problems in the Hebrew.
For example, the plural pronoun suffix }otam ("them") oddly refers back to the tribes of Israel,
rather than to the (singular) stick o f j u d a h at the end of the clause. Moreover, the preposition
HAFTARAH VA-YIGGASH 52
'alav ("upon it" or "with it") refers to Ephraim and again focuses on the joining of the tribes—not
the sticks. NJPS (and many modern commentators) do not translate }otam. This agrees with
Abravanel's reconstruction and remark: "The word }otam has no purpose here." 9
23.1 -will save them in all their settlements This rendition resolves the textual difficulty
through ambiguity. "In all their settlements" renders mi-kol moshvoteihem, literally "out of all
their dwelling-places" (OIPS). But if the purification is from the idolatries of exile (Abravanel),
the text has already referred to the national restoration to the homeland in verse 21. Thus NIPS
seeks to harmonize the verses by a formulation that could refer to the people in exile and in the
homeland. But based on the fact that Symmachus renders the word "turnings away" (a Greek
translation of meshuvot in ler. 2:19), Greenberg proposes reading meshuvoteihem in our case.10
The original phrase would then be "I will save them from all their defections." This resolves the
confusions of the Masoretic text.
I -will cleanse them Ezekiel's priestly concerns lead him to regard the people's sins and
restoration in cultic terms: idolatry is described as ritually defiling, and salvation is presented in
terms of purification. This last theme is even more dramatically expressed in Ezek. 36:22-32
(especially w. 24-25). The result, in both instances, is a renewal of the covenant.
they shall be My people, and I will be their God This is a formulaic expression of the
covenantal bond and its reciprocity. It is also found in Ezek. 11:20 and 14:11, with alternate
formulations in 36:28 and 37:27. The formulary is common in other prophetic writings (cf.
Hos. 2:25) and in the Torah (cf. Lev. 26:12; Deut. 29:12). The priestly context of Lev. 26:
6-12, with its blessings of peace, repopulation, covenant, and indwelling of the divine Presence
(;mishkan), is the likely source of the language and themes in Ezek. 37:26-27 (cf. also Lev. 26:3
and Ezek. 37:24). Elsewhere, the priest-prophet Ezekiel draws on the curses formulated in Lev.
26:14-43 (see Ezekiel 5 and 14).
24.My servantDavid This refers to a scion of the Davidic dynasty (cf. Kimhi). 11 The
expression goes back to the founding of the dynasty; see 2 Sam. 7:5 and its citation in Ps. 89:4,
21 (cf. 1 Kings 11:13, 32, 34, 36, 38). Ezekiel anticipates a restoration of the united monarchy
ofDavidic times.
26. everlasting covenant Hebrew berit 'olam. Ezekiel's emphasis on an eternal covenant
reflects a distinct exilic hope. It recurs in Ezek. 16:60 and (the exilic prophecies of) Isa. 55:3
and 6 1 : 8 . A s a legal expression used in covenantal formulations, the term 'olam (lit., "forever")
is much earlier (see Hos. 2:21).
I will establish An odd use of the Hebrew u-neta-tim. Kimhi paraphrases "I shall establish
in the land." Compare R. Eliezer ofBeaugency. 12
27. My Presence shall rest over them "My Presence," Hebrew mishkani. The prophet
uses the old vocabulary of the desert Tabernacle (mishkan) to indicate the renewal of the divine
Presence among the people (cf. Exod. 25:8-9). Ancient lewish tradition (Targum) already in-
terpreted mishkani ("My Tabernacle") as "My (indwelling) Presence" or Shekhinah. R. Eliezer of
Beaugency emphasized the protective aspect of the symbolism. This is effected by substituting
the placing of the mishka-n "over them" rather than "among them." 13
What the Torah portrays as a family event, the prophet Ezekiel projects as a national hope: the re-
conciliation and reunification of all the children of Israel. In xhepamshah, ludah assumes a leadership
role among his brothers and negotiates with loseph for the redemption ofhis brethren (Gen. 44:
18-34). This results in the restoration of family unity and the collective ingathering of the offspring
of lacob in Egypt during the time of drought. In the haftarah, God prophesies the unification of
ASHKENAZIM IKINGS2:1-12
For the contents of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its structure, historiography, and
theology, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the remarks on the various haftarah readings taken from this book (listed in
"Index of Biblical Passages").
This haftarah reports David's last will and testament to Solomon. The dying king instructs his
son and heir regarding the religious and political pursuits he should follow in order to be success-
ful (1 Kings 2:1-4, 5-9). After this charge, David's death and burial are recorded, followed by
a note recording the duration of his reign (v. 10-11). The fact of Solomon's rule is then added,
along with a concluding point that his sovereignty was well established (v. 12) —even though
he had not yet carried out the ruthless acts advised by his father (cf. w. 28-35).
PART
a. 14.Kings
EPILOGUE:
2:10-11 ENotices
N D AND TRANSITION
about David (1 Kings 2:10-12)
b. 1 Kings 2:12 Notices about Solomon
The haftarah is formed by a ring structure. Editorial comments at the beginning and the end (1
Kings 2:1) encase a report ofDavid's religious counsel to his son (v. 2-4) and his hints regard-
ing the treatment of Joab (v. 5-6), the sons of Barzillai (v. 7), and the notorious Shimei son of
Gera (v. 8-9). The figure of David portrayed here is both a pious observer of the Law and a
savvy politico who knows what it takes to secure Solomon's throne—which has just been won
by intrigue and duplicity (1 Kings l). 1
Closer inspection of the historical report shows that the political strategies of the king's final
testament constitute its original content. David's words begin with a militaristic exhortation ("Be
strong and show yourself a man") in 1 Kings 2:2. This charge is similar to the exhortation given
by Moses to Joshua in connection with the tasks of conquest ("Be strong and resolute, for it is
you who shall go with this people into the land" [Deut. 31:7]). Moreover, the natural sequel to
David's advice to "be a man" is the political counsel that the older king gives his son in 1 Kings
COMMENTS
1 Kings 2:1. he instructed Hebrew va-yetzav; literally, "he commanded." The term is
used for final pronouncements, as notably in the case of Ahitophel. With the failure of his advice
(in Absalom's service), "he [Ahitophel] went home . . . set his affairs in order (lit., "instructed
[va-yetza-v] his household"), and then . . . hanged himself" (2 Sam. 17:23). For the term in our
pamshah, see Gen. 49:29; 50:12, 16; and the Comments below. In the present case, the verb
has a double entendre— combining the force of an exhortation (Deut. 31:23) with the urgency
of a final request.
3. Keep the charge of the LORD The "charge," Hebrew mishmeret, is a technical term in
the Deuteronomic tradition for observing the covenant. It originally has the sense of keeping
55 HAFTARAH FOR VA-YIGGASH
watch, especially over priestly objects. 3 The term is also found in ancientNear Eastern land grants
from a suzerain to a vassal who "keeps faithful service." This usage is precisely parallel to God's
grant ofland to Abraham for his faithfulness in Gen. 26:4-5. 4
as recorded Literally, "as written [in the Teaching of Moses]." The reference may not
be merely to different types of behavior "recorded" in the Book of Deuteronomy, but to actual
phrases nearly identical with that found here (cf. Deut. 11:1; also 10:12-13; 11:32). As for the
relationship between religious observance and worldly success (1 Kings 2:3-4), compare Deut.
11:22-23, where Moses exclaims: "If, then, you faithfully keep all this Instruction that I com-
mand you, loving the L O R D your God, walking in all His ways, and holding fast to Him, the
L O R D will dislodge before you all these nations: you will dispossess nations greater and more
numerous than you."
4. your line... shall never end The promise that the royal line will not be cut off
(yika-ret) is cited from the divine promise to David in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 ("forever" [v. 16]). The
guarantee is repeated in 1 Kings 2:4 (and cf. 1 Kings 8:25 and 9:5). This promise has messianic
dimensions in Jer. 33:17 (cf. v. 15).
5. blood ofwar That is, Joab had thus brought bloodguilt on David's house; see 2 Sam.
3:27 and 20:10 [Transl.].
7. those that eat at your table That is, for whose maintenance you provide; see 2 Sam.
19:32ff. [Transl.].
8. insultedmeoutrqgeously See 2 Sam. 16:5ff. [Transl.].
came down to meet me See 2 Sam. 19:17ff. [Transl.].
12. and his rule was firmly established The concluding line of the haftarah indicates
Solomon's success. Like the language of v. 4b (see preceding note), this phrase alludes to the
divine promise in 2 Sam. 7:12-16. In this context, it serves to indicate its fulfillment. See also
1 Kings 2:45-46.
Thepamshah and haftarah both deal with the approaching death of a leader (Jacob and David)
and with a final pronouncement delivered to their sons (the twelve sons of Jacob; Solomon). The
two episodes begin with the phrase im-yikrevuyemei . . . la-mut, "When the [Jacob's / David's] life
was drawing to a close" (Gen. 47:29; 1 Kings 2:1), and subsequently present the final will and
instruction. The technical term va-yetza-v, "he instructed," also recurs in both instances (Gen. 49:
29; 1 Kings 2:1). Jacob requests that he be buried in the family tomb in the field of Machpelah
(Gen. 49:29-32). This request is subsequently fulfilled (50:12-13), though not until Joseph's
intervention with Pharaoh, referring to his father's instruction as an oath (50:5; see 47:29). In a
further development, the brothers fear Joseph's revenge for their having sold him into servitude,
and they send him a message (va-yetza-vu) saying: "Before his death your father [Jacob] left this
instruction [tzivah]: So shall you say to Joseph, 'Forgive, I urge you, the offense and guilt of
your brothers who treated you so harshly'" (50:16-17). Joseph accepts this assertion as true and
assures them of his good intentions (50:19-21). In the case of David, the last will is a mixture of
religious exhortation and political advice. Here, too, the dutiful son obeys his father. In rabbinic
terms, the wills are made meiha-mat mitah, "in anticipation of death."
Jacob's final request of his sons in xhepa-mshah repeats the more personal account to Joseph
alone (Gen. 47:29). It is here that the full moral force of being an agent for the dead is articulated.
After supplicating the son, the father refers to the burial in Canaan as an act of hesed ve-'emet,
"steadfast loyalty." More specifically, it is best understood as an act of gratuitous kindness, of
hesedshel }emet (Genesis Rabbah 96:5). 5 The Rabbis regarded such behavior as the most superior
Regarding David it is written, "And King David was old" [1 Kings 1:1]; but when he
began to die, [we read] "When David's life was drawing to a close" [2:1]. Similarly, when
lacob began to die, he humbled himself before loseph, as is said, "If I have found favor
in your eyes" [Gen. 47:29b]; [and] when [did he say so]? —when he approached death,
as is said, "When Israel's life was drawing to a close."
The point of this midrashic comparison is to highlight the fact that lacob was of diminished
authority in old age, as signaled by the language of entreaty, while David's loss of dignity is
implied by the absence of the title "king" in the notice of his impending death. Accordingly, the
preacher's insight has little to do with filial loyalty or parental privilege. It rather serves to sug-
gest how Scripture reminds us that the elderly feel dependent upon their young (lacob) and are
regarded differently with the diminishments of old age (David).
For the haftarah for Shemot for Sephardim, see next haftarah.
For an overall discussion of the prophecies of Isaiah 1 - 3 9 and a consideration of their histori-
cal setting, literary style, and theological teachings, see "The Book oflsaiah: Chapters 1-39"
in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other
prophecies from Isaiah 1 - 3 9 recited as haftarah selections, see the listing in "Index of Biblical
Passages."
The haftarah is taken from the end of a series of doom oracles known as the "Isaiah Apoca-
lypse" (Isaiah 24-27) 1 and from the beginning of judgments directed against Ephraim and
Jerusalem (symbolizing the northern and southern kingdoms, respectively). However, the
haftarah is not completely negative, and even features an alternation between promises of hope
and threats of destruction. The reading begins with a promise of national renewal (Isa. 27:
6 [A]) and concludes each of the threats against Israel (27:7-11 [B] and 28:1-13 [B 1 ]) with
promises of redemption and renewal (27:12-13 [A1] and 29:22-23 [A 2 ], respectively).
The overall schema is thus A-B-A 1 -B 1 -A 2 , in which the beginning, middle, and end of
the haftarah are marked by promises of hope. The dominant expression of this hope predicts
a national ingathering from the far-flung reaches of Assyria and Egypt (Isa. 27:13). This
will be like a new exodus—a fitting counterpoint to the original Exodus anticipated in the
pamshah (Exod. 3:18-22). Moreover, just as Moses beseeched Pharaoh to let the Israelites
worship God in the wilderness (Exod. 5:1), the climax of Isaiah's prophecy is the service
of the Lord on His holy mount. In this way, thepamshah sets the pattern for national and
religious renewal.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 27:6. [In days] to come Hebrew ha-ba'im, "coming," has been construed by many
medieval and modern commentators as an abbreviation for ba-ya-mim loa-ba'im ("in days to come")
or the like (Ibn Ezra and Kimhi). 2 This reading aligns it with the eschatological formulate-jyowha-
hu} ("in that day") in 2 7 : 1 2 - 1 3 and 2 8 : 5 . An ancient alternative understood the wordha-ba'im to
refer to the "coming" or "ingathering" of Israel to its homeland (Septuagint and Targum). However,
other medievals suggest that the reference is to the coming of the Israelite exiles to Egypt, where
they multiplied just as during their first descent into Egypt (see Rashi and R. Isaiah di Trani).
Jacob shall strike root The Hebrew verb yashresh is used. A similar usage, also with
reference to filling the earth with bounty, occurs in Ps. 8 0 : 1 0 .
7. Was he beaten as"hisbeater"hadbeen~i The Hebrew captures the alliterative sound of
blows, ha-ke-makka-t makkehu hikkahu. But the phrase is obscure. NIPS gives an oblique rendering
and does not specify who beat Israel. By contrast, the OIPS version ("Has He smitten him as
He smote those who smote him?") construes this verse in terms of divine justice.3 Alternatively,
some medievals assume the agent to be ancient Assyria and thus perceive an allusion to the fall of
Samaria (Ibn Ezra); others identify the agent with Egypt (Kimhi). The identity of the actors in
the second half-line has also yielded several possibilities, though most traditional commentators
have assumed that it refers to the ancient Canaanites.
HAFTARAH FOR SHEMOT (ASHKENAZIM) 59
Grammatically, the parallelism of the two lines is asymmetrical (ha-ke-ma-kka-t makkehu hikkahu
/im-ke-hereg haruga-v horag, "Was he beaten as his beater has been? / Did he suffer such slaughter
as his slayers?") —since the verb ofbeating in the first line (makkehu) is an active participle and
that dealing with slaying in the second phrase (horag) is passive. Because of this difference, some
medieval grammarians and commentators assumed that either the first verb (makkehu) should
be construed as a passive participle or the second one (horag) taken as an active verb. 4 NJPS has
apparently adopted the first alternative. On this view, the variation is merely for stylistic effect.
For other interpreters, the decision to harmonize the verbal constructions is based on the as-
sumption that the verse refers to only one agent and one action (see Ibn Bal'am). 5 Whatever the
case, the prophet's rhetorical query is denied in the very next phrase (v. 8).
S.Assailing them withfury •unchained NJPS is figurative here. Literally, Hebrew teriven-
nah means something like "striving with her." This suggests that when God contended with Israel,
He sent her (be-shalhah) into exile in full measure (be-sa'sse'ah) for her crimes. The devastation of
Samaria by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. may therefore be alluded to. The notion that be-sa'sse'ah
refers to a "measure of judgment" (i. e., that it is se'ah [measure] in a reduplicated form), 6 has
been common since the Middle Ages, 7 but the idea is ancient. Already the Talmud and Targum
understood the noun as referring to punishment measure for measure. 8 Israel would therefore
not be punished unfairly, worse than its enemy, but divine justice would fit the crime.
bore them off This is the meaning of the verb hagah (see the same usage in 2 Sam. 20:
13; Prov. 25:4). The verb may have been chosen here because of its association with breath or
sound (Josh. 1:8; cf. Abravanel). The sense of removal has been generally followed since Saadiah
Gaon.
9. This verse would read well before verse 6; the thought of verses 7-8, dealing with the
punishment oflsrael's enemies, is continued in verses 10-11 [Transl.].
This is the only price The nation's sin was to be expiated through banishment and the
destruction of false worship. This is the only or required condition (see Ibn Ezra).
sacred-post... incensealtar Hebrew asherim andhammanim, respectively. The sacred
post is proscribed (in Deut. 16:21 it refers to a tree) most likely because of its association with
Canaanite worship of Asherah. 9 It is referred to here in the masculine plural, as in Deut. 7:5
and 12:3. The pair'asherim/hammanim is also found in Isa. 17:8. The sense of hammanim as an
incense stand or brazier is inferred from the contextual use of the Nabatean and Palmyrene term
The term is also found in Ezek. 6:4 and 6. 10
10-11. The referent of these verses is difficult. If the focus is Israel, the verse projects the
devastation that would accompany divine judgment (possibly the fall of Samaria [Ibn Ezra]);
whereas if the focus is Israel's enemy, the verse projects that foreign nation's doom after Israel
abandons idolatry (Rashi). The determination as to which nation has "no understanding" would
thus vary accordingly.
13. the strayed... and the expelled These terms, 'ovedim and niddahim, respectively,
reflect a sense of loss and abandonment. The pair recurs in Jer. 27:10 and Ezek. 34:11-16. In
the latter, the focus is also on national restoration. The motif in Ezekiel echoes the legal language
in Deut. 22:1-3. 1 1
Isaiah 28:1-13. The prophet condemns Ephraim for its besotted ways. The focus is on
the nation at large; the reference to "these are also" (v. 7) extends the condemnation to priests
and prophets. Some medievals and moderns have taken this reference to mark the inclusion of
Judeans in the rebuke (Ibn Ezra). The projection of doom suggests that this unit precedes the
destruction of Samaria in 722 B.C.E.
l.Ah Hebrew hoy. This cry of woe recurs throughout Isaiah 28-33. 1 2 Compare Isa. 5:
8, 18, 20, and 22.
HAFTARAH FOR SHEMOT (ASHKENAZIM) 60
On the heads of men bloated with richfood In Hebrew, "bloated with rich food" is gey'
shemanim (also v. 4). The large Isaiah scroll from Qumran (lQIsa a ) reads^^y, homge'eh, "bloated;
pompous." This makes philological sense, and NJPS translates from this verb (following Ibn
Ezra). See also "proud crowns," 'ateretge'ut (v. 1).
9-10. This is the drunkards' reaction to Isaiah's reproof [Transl.].
10,13. Mutter upon mutter, 'murmur 'Upon murmur The prophet despairs of mak-
ing sense to the nation. To whom could he instruct God's ways, children newly weaned? Isaiah
seems to mock the way God's word sounds to these people. It is like mutter and murmur: tzav
le-tzav kav le-kav. The discovery of old abecedaries has even led some to suggest that the prophet
is chanting letters of the alphabet in an infantile singsong (the letter tzadi precedes kof). 13 But
why these letters? Perhaps because the prophet plays on the notions of commandment (tzav)
and measure (kav) —both of which were ignored by the people. 14 If so, Isaiah would speak to
the people in a kind of prattle, ironically alluding to divine law and punishment (cf. v. I I ) . 1 5
Alternatively, the prophet mockingly suggests that what the people hear as mere blather (tzav/kav)
is in truth God's command (tzav) and measure of judgment (kav) against them.
12. let the weary rest That is, do not embark on any political adventure at this time
[Transl.].
13. march That is, embark on the political adventure [Transl.].
Isaiah 29:22-23. The prophecy concludes on a positive note, skipping forward to a
promise of national restoration. 16 The God who redeemed Abraham will redeem his descendants,
and all shall hallow Him for these mighty acts.
23. For -when he—that is his children—behold This translation renders the pronominal
suffix of bi-r'oto as anticipating the noun "children" and takes the object of the seeing to be the
work of God's hands. 17 A similar view is espoused by Saadiah Gaon in his translation and by
Ibn Bal'am. 18 Alternatively, Ibn Ezra and Kimhi understand the object of the seeing to be the
children (cf. OJPS, "when he sees his children").
Just as the Book of Exodus refers to "the sons of Israel who came [ha-ba'im] to Egypt with Jacob,"
where they settled and "increased very greatly, so that the land was filled \ya-timmale*] with them"
(Exod. 1:1, 7), prophetic reading opens with reference to the people of Jacob/Israel "who came
[ha-ba'im]" and settled and "filled \u-male}u\ the earth with produce" (Isa. 27:6; for this rendering,
see Comments). Read in tandem with Exodus 1, this coming was often understood to refer to
the original descent of the ancient Israelites to Egypt. This midrashic correlation is first attested
in a piyyut of R. Yannai19 and is valuable ancient testimony to the reading of Isa. 26:6ff. with
the opening chapters of Exodus. 20 Rashi developed a detailed parallelism with the events of the
first Exodus. 21 However, some rabbinic homilists correlated Exod. 1:1 and Isa. 27:6 in order to
extend the meaning of the verse to include their contemporary diasporas. The positive element
here was the fruitful settlement of the new "comers" in their foreign habitats. 22
The haftarah evokes hope in a new exodus. This is done by the promise that "In that day, a
great ram's horn shall be sounded; and the strayed who are in the land of Assyria and the expelled
who are in the land of Egypt shall come [u-va'u] and worship the L O R D on the holy mount, in
Jerusalem" (Isa. 27:13). For some Sages, this blast was correlated with the sound of the sho-
far on Rosh Hashanah and understood in an eschatological sense (B. Rosh Hashanah lla-b),
prophesying the physical restoration of the nation to its homeland. The promised redemption
has a spiritual component as well—the worship of God on His holy mount (bar ha-kodesh). A
more inward dimension is added at the end of the prophecy, where the promise is given that a
future generation shall perceive the presence of the Lord in its midst, and "hallow" (yakdishu)
For the haftarah for Shemot for Ashkenazim, see the previous haftarah.
For the text and commentary for Shemot for Sephardim,
see the haftarah for Mattot.
The pamshah and haftarah are linked by the commissions of Moses and leremiah. A common
pattern of divine address, human resistance, and divine assurance is found in these texts. The
theme of prophetic hesitation and divine encouragement was also noted in rabbinic circles, and
a series of examples are given (Tanhuma Shemot 18; Tanhuma Buber, Shemot 5a). 1 A chain of
prophetic messengers is thus formed across the generations, dramatizing God's involvement in
Israel's destiny.
Moses and leremiah come to their calling in two ways. Moses wanders in the silent space of the
desert, where he hears God's address. From this place he will embark upon his historical mission.
The fiery bush is the symbol of his initiation, marking his capacity to respond to the numinous
in nature and the divine reality that transcends it. Moses is thus a model for every leader whose
destiny is formed through a temporary withdrawal or separation from the patterns of everyday
life. leremiah represents a second type. For him, divine destiny is an innate quality that must
come to consciousness; it is the call of one's spiritual self that must be obeyed—beyond all sense
of personal safety and plan. The symbol of his initiation is a divine consecration in the womb,
leremiah is thus a model for those who must realize an inner truth known to them alone.
Moses and leremiah also exemplify the courage to overcome earthly fear and self-doubt and
to transform a private sense of divine task into a life of public service. For such persons, spiritual
awareness is not something static or self-contained, but repeatedly engaged with all the challenges
of life. In Moses' case, this required a single-minded focus on one goal, tirelessly articulated: the
liberation of his people and their worship of God. leremiah's task involved more volatile shifts
of rebuke and judgment, assurance and assuagement. His great challenge was to know that one
God required both, depending upon circumstance, and that the anger and resistance his words
evoked should not be taken personally. Social isolation is the correlate of such a life—a loneliness
beyond God's promised protection.
For Ezekiel's life and message, see "The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Ex-
cerpted in the Haftarot Cycle" and the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from his
prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
HAFTARAH FOR SHEMOT (SEPHAKDIM)' 62
The haftarah is taken from Ezekiel's oracles against foreign nations (chaps. 25-32). The main
body of the reading is a series of prophecies against Egypt (Ezek. 29:1-16), dating from the
last days of the First Temple (586 B.C.E.); added to them is another from seventeen years later
announcing Egypt's despoliation by the Babylonians (29:17-20). 1 These pronouncements are
framed by two oracles of hope delivered to the people of Israel (28:25-26 and 29:21). The first
of these was originally the conclusion to prophecies against the Phoenician city of Sidon (Ezek.
28:2-24), while the second is a prophecy of national restoration after the Egyptian dooms recited
in 29:1-16. The new form is entirely a rabbinic construction.
The haftarah forms an ABA structure in which two undated oracles of hope directed to Israel
(Ezek. 28:25-26 and 29:21) surround a series of dated oracles relating to Egypt and its fate (29:
1-20). The words spoken to Israel anticipate the people's restoration from exile and the renewal
of national power; the prophecies affecting Egypt anticipate doom and only modest recovery.
The oracles against Pharaoh and Egypt are not of one piece. The first group is dated to the tenth
month of "the tenth year" (29:1) of King Jehoiachin's exile to Babylon in 597 B.C.E.2 Ezekiel's
opening prophecy against Egypt may thus have occured at the beginning of 586 B.C.E., when
the nation placed hope in an alliance with Egypt during the final Babylonian siege of Jerusalem
(cf. Jer. 37:5). 3 Israel's vain trust is the basis of the prophet's vilification of Egypt, which was "a
staff of reed" to "the House of Israel: when they grasped you with the hand, you would splin-
ter" (Ezek. 29:6-7). Another doom prophecy is dated to the beginning o f t h e twenty-seventh
year" of Jehoiachin's exile (571 B.C.E.).4 In it the Lord speaks again to Ezekiel and tells him that
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, would soon bring ruin upon the land of Egypt—a delayed
recompense for the Babylonian siege against lyre years before (w. 17-20).
The themes oflsraelite restoration and Egyptian doom are underscored by repeated words.
Particularly forceful is the cluster bearing upon ingathering and dispersion, true security and
false trust. Thus in the opening oracle, the House of Israel that "have been dispersed" (na-fotzu)
among the "peoples" ('ammim) is promised that they shall be "gathered" (ka-btzi) by God to their
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 28:25-26. The theme oflsrael's ingathering recurs throughout Ezekiel's prophe-
cies of hope (cf. Ezek. 11:17; 20:34; 34:13; 36:24; 37:21). This oracular promise of building
and planting literally reverses ancient curses for covenantal disobedience (Deut. 28:30, 38-40).
Positive and negative variations of the motif are prominent in the prophecies of leremiah, Ezekiel's
contemporary.5 The present promise of security in the land alludes to the covenant blessings of Lev.
26:5. The sequence of national ingathering and security recurs in Ezek. 34:12-16 and 25-27.
25. WhenI. . . have shown Myself holy through them God speaks of His manifestation
of sanctity by restoring Israel to its homeland. The Hebrew verb for "have shown Myself holy"
is ve-nikdashtif A similar formulation of this theology, with the same terms for national ingather-
ing and for divine sanctification through public acts, occurs in Ezek. 20:41. In that setting, the
postexilic sanctification complements God's assertion that by not publicly destroying the nation
for its sins, He avoided desecrating His holy Name (cf. 20:9, 14). 7 This language and these
notions are priestly in origin; see Lev. 22:32.
Ezekiel 29:1. tenth year Dated from the beginning of King lehoiachin's exile to Babylon
i n 5 9 7 B.C.E.
3.1 made itfor myself Hebrew 'asitini. NIPS translates this to mean that Pharaoh boasts
of having created the Nile. He thus claims self-sufficiency. This understanding agrees with Rashi.
But such a use of the suffix to connote a dative is unusual. Alternatively, the verb means "I have
made myself." This is the more radical mythic assertion, laden with the hubris of self-creation.
It was so understood in many rabbinic midrashim and liturgical poems. 8
A rich verbal and thematic tapestry links the readings. The pamshah portrays the promise and
fulfillment of divine judgments (shefatim; NIPS: "chastisements") against Pharaoh and all Egypt
(Exod. 7:4). At the outset, proof of Moses' divine commission is exemplified by the wondrous
transformation of his staff into a "serpent" (tannin), as well as a plague upon the waters of the
Nile (ye'or), so that its "fish" will die (7:15, 17-18, 20). Through such activities, the Egyptians
would come to "know" (ve-yade'u) the Lord who "would bring out the Israelites from their midst"
(7:5). Correspondingly, the haftarah announces a promise of divine judgments (shefatim-, NIPS:
"punishment") against Israel's enemies (Ezek. 28:26) and forecasts doom against Pharaoh and all
Egypt (29:1-20). Moreover, the Pharaoh is presented as a haughty serpent (tannin; NIPS: "mon-
ster") in the Nile (ye'or), whose "fish" will be cast from the waters to die (29:3-5, 10). Through
such activities, Israel and Egypt shall "know" (ve-yade'u) the Lord (28:26; 29:6, 16, 21).
Theparashah and haftarah thus stand in a typological relationship to one other—as an old
and new judgment against Egypt. lust as the first occurrence came to pass with Israel's liberation,
so the new judgment against Egypt is marked by promises of the nation's ingathering and the
sprouting of its horn of victory. In this way, history is envisaged as a recurrent pattern of divine
acts of redemption. Through His saving acts, God will again be recognized as the transcendent
source of redemption and will vindicate human hopes of freedom from oppression. The people
are challenged to look beyond political alliances and the false confidences they bring (Ezek. 29:
6-7, 16). Only divine power will liberate the people.
In several rabbinic homilies, our pamshah and haftarah are also read in light of each other,
producing dramatic and ironic critiques of pharaonic pretensions. The starting point for these
ripostes begins with the assumption that Pharaoh's proclamation of superiority in Ezek. 29:3
(}ani 'asitini) was nothing less than a proclamation of self-divinization ("I have made myself [a
god]") or self-creation ("I have made myself")—not simply an assertion of creative power ("I
have made it"; viz., the Nile). On the basis of the first boast (self-divinization), various accounts
explain why the Pharaoh went down to the river early in the morning. With bold mockery, the
Sages explain that Pharaoh sneaked down to the Nile to perform his bodily functions out of sight
of all who would believe him a god. It was there that Moses confronted him and prevented the
Pharaoh from doing his intended actions—mocking his physical needs and vaunted divinity.17
Since it is hardly likely that the Sages knew ancient Egyptian myths of the god-king (Pharaoh
as Horus incarnate), one may suspect that contemporary expressions of divine kingship among
the Roman Caesars may have pricked their ire. The midrashic comments (and hence the haftarah
itself) would thus function as indirect polemics against contemporary pagan ideologies. 18
The motif of Pharaoh's self-creation ("I made myself") is sometimes linked with the theme of
self-divinization and sometimes stands alone. Old Egyptian myths of divine self-generation may
lie behind Ezekiel's polemic. For the Sages, the hubris of such a proclamation was sufficient to
provoke their response. In fact, in many comments (both ancient and medieval), God's statement
For Jeremiah's life and times and a discussion of the content, style, and theology of the Book of
Jeremiah, see "The Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." For a discussion of the other haftarah readings taken from Jeremiah's prophecies, see the
listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
Jeremiah 46:13-28 is part of a series of prophecies against Egypt and constitute the first
group of pronouncements against foreign nations collected in Jeremiah 46-51. This anthology
is entitled: "The word of the L O R D to the prophet Jeremiah concerning the nations" (Jer. 46:
l). 1 As a distinct thematic unit, these oracles stand apart from the prophecies against Israel in
Jeremiah 1-25, the consolations in Jeremiah 30-32, and the historical narratives found in Je-
remiah 26-29 and 33-45. 2
The anti-Egyptian oracles in Jer. 46:13-26 are of varied content and styles. They are fol-
lowed by two positive oracles on behalfof Israel in verses 27-28. The structure of the haftarah
thus moves from negative prophecies directed against an external foe to positive exhortations
addressed to the prophet's people.
The doom oracles against Egypt (part 1) are given a historical setting in Jer. 46:13 and 25-26,
where King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is identified as the avenger; but no precise date is given.
One may surmise that Jeremiah's words date from the same period as the group of oracles found
in 46:3-12, that is, from the time of the Egyptian defeat at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar in
the fourth year of the reign of King Jehoiakim o f j u d a h , 604 B.C.E. (46:2). The oracles of the
haftarah mock Egyptian defenses and repeatedly predict a headlong flight. The prophet says that
the Egyptians will "not stand firm"—neither the regulars nor the mercenaries, for "the L O R D
thrust them down" and "made many stumble" (46:15-16).
The language of doom is filled with taunting proclamations of the Egyptian call to arms and the
ensuing flight (Jer. 46:14, 15-16). These are counterpointed by the voice of the Lord, proclaiming
doom and desolation against the people. This difference is underscored by the mocking epithet
ascribed by the Egyptian defenders to "Pharaoh king of Egypt: 'Braggart who let the hour go by5"
(v. 17). By contrast, God "the King, whose name is LORD of Hosts" swears by His own Being that
the words of doom "shall. . . come to pass" (v. 18). The aura of inevitability is reinforced by the
repetition of the particle ki, with the sense of"for" and "surely" (w. 14-15, 18-19, 21-23).
In these prophecies, "The LORD of Hosts, the God of Israel" is the universal Lord of history—in-
flicting punishment "on Egypt, her gods, and her kings" (Jer. 46:25). However, the doom is not
total destruction; eventual restoration is predicted as God's final word to the Egyptians (v. 26).
The final oracles of the haftarah breathe another spirit (part 2). Israel is exhorted to overcome
fear and loss though assurances that the Lord is with them and "will deliver" them "from their
land of captivity" (Jer. 46:27). An ultimate vindictiveness tinges this prophecy of encouragement
and restoration: God promises that He "will make an end of all the nations" among which Israel
was "banished"—but "will not make an end of you." The Israelites will thus receive judgment
in proper "measure," but will survive (v. 28).
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 46:14. inMigdol... inNoph andTahpanhes The Egyptian place-names have
been Hebraized. Migdol is a Semitic name meaning "Tower" (in Egyptian sources, ma-k-ti-m):,
it was used for several frontier towns in the eastern Delta. Noph is a corruption of Moph (see
Hos. 9:6), or Memphis (Saqqara, in the lower Nile). Tahpanhes is derived from two words,
meaning "Fortress of the Nubian" (Tel Daphne).
15. stalwarts swept away Hebrew 'nishaph means "swept away" (for the verb sahaph, cf.
Prov. 28:3). In the Book of Jeremiah, the alternate dialectal root sahab also occurs (see Jer. 15:3;
22:19; 49:20; 50:45). Given the theme of flight in these prophecies (cf. nas in 46:21), and the
Egyptian setting of the oracle, it is possible that the word 'nishaph was chosen as a derisive pun
on the Egyptian god Apis worshiped at Memphis. This interpretation is, in fact, articulated in
the Septuagint, which renders the phrase "Why has Apis fled, the Bull not stood?" This transla-
tion is based on a midrashic etymology in which the word 'nishaph was construed from the verb
nas (has fled) and the noun haph (Apis). It also takes the plural "bulls" abireykha) as a "plural
of majesty" ("Bull") and links it to the next line.
16. " Up I Let us 'return to our people" This refers to the mercenaries or foreign traders
who flee Egypt on the day of rout.
HAFTARAH FORBE-SHALLAH68
deadly Hebrew ha-yonah. Compare Jer. 50:16 (also Jer. 25:38 and Zeph. 3:1). The
word may be related to the legal verb used to convey oppressive violence in Exod. 22:20 and
elsewhere (Lev. 19:33; Ezek. 18:12).
17. "'Braggart who let the hourgo by" The phrase is difficult. NJPS offers a figurative
translation, taking sha'on (uproar; commotion) in the sense of a "loudmouth." The Targum
construed the term more literally, referring to Pharaoh as one who made a big tumult. The
noun can also mean "desolation" or "destruction." On this basis, Kimhi dubbed Nebuchadnez-
zar "King of Destruction." In the haftarah, this negative designation contrasts with the positive
prophecy in verse 27, where redeemed Israel is promised "quiet," sha'anan, on their return to
their homeland.
18.As surely as Tabor The simile is puzzling. As rendered here, the analogy suggests that
as surely as Tabor is among the mountains, the event will come to pass (Rashi and Kimhi). Alterna-
tively, the verb ("will come") refers to the advent ofNebuchadnezzar (i. e., "he shall come").
20. Egypt is a handsome heifer This metaphor may allude to the Egyptian bull god, Apis
(possibly mocked inv. 15; see above).
from the north The reference here and in verse 24 to an enemy from the north (tzafon)
is unspecified. Elsewhere in leremiah the designation of an enemy from the northland is similarly
vague (cf. ler. 1:13; 6:22; 10:22). 4 Only in 605 B.C.E. does the prophet identify this people with
Babylon (ler. 25:9). It is presumably based on this identification that the unspecified oracles against
Egypt were contextualized by the final editors of the Book ofleremiah (see 46:13, 26).
25. inflict punishment Hebrew poked. This summary statement links back to verse 21,
'et pekudda-tam, "their day of disaster." The verb has the sense of requital and is so used in the
Decalogue (Exod. 20:5) and in the list of divine attributes (Exod. 34:7, "visits [the inquity]").
Significantly, the phrase ve-nakkeh lo}J'anakkeka ("I will not leave you unpunished") in verse 28
echoes the phrase nakkeh lo'yenakkeh ("He [God] does not remit all punishment") in the same
attribute list.5
Amon Amon or Amon Re, the imperial god of Egypt. The chief center of worship was
in the Temple ofKarnak in Thebes. 6
No The city of Thebes. In Egyptian niwt, "the city." Thebes was the chief city of Upper
Egypt from the Middle Kingdom period (2000 B.C.E.) on. leremiah lived during the middle of
the Saitic period (also known as the Twenty-sixth Dynasty; 663-525 B.C.E.), when the center
of government shifted from Thebes to Sais in the upper Delta. Nevertheless, Thebes and the
Temple ofKarnak remained strong during this time.
27-28. Have nofear These oracles exhort the people to courage and hope. A similar
usage is found in prophecies addressed to the nation in exile (Isa. 43:1; 44:2). The formula "have
no fear" and "I am with you" is commonly used to encourage individuals embarking on difficult
tasks. See ler. 1:8, 17-19; and 15:20.
The haftarah counterposes the theme of Israelite servitude in Egypt in the^pamshah with a promise
ofEgypt's eventual destruction (ler. 46:14-24). The plague oflocusts arbeh) described in the
parashah (Exod. 10:3-20) is also echoed in leremiah's prophecy, as a metaphor for the over-
whelming hosts that will descend upon Egypt in its hour of doom ("for they are more numerous
than locusts [}arbeh]" [v. 23]). The consolation of the haftarah is that the Egyptian kingdom
will be punished "measure for measure." From this perspective, Nebuchadnezzar's "coming" in
judgment against Pharaoh (la-vo:' [ler. 46:13]; root b-w-') also answers Moses' ancient "coming"
(bo} [Exod. 10:1]) in supplication before Pharaoh himself. Thus God will wreak judgment upon
For a discussion of the Book of Judges and an overall consideration of its historiography, theo-
logy, and literary form, see "The Book of Judges" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in
the Haftarot Cycle." See also the discussion of other haftarah readings from the Book of Judges
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah presents an account of the battle between a coalition of northern Israelite tribes
and Canaanite armies in prose (Judg. 4:4-24) and poetic form (5:1-31). This battle was part of
the wars of liberation that completed the conquest begun by Joshua in the mid-twelfth century
B.C.E. 1 In both versions, specific attention is given to the prowess of two women—Deborah,
a prophetess and judge in the region of Ephraim, and Jael, a tent dweller of the Kenite tribe.
Deborah rouses the commander Barak son of Abinoam to battle and supports him in exhorting
the tribes to war; Jael, by ruse, kills the Canaanite commander Sisera when he flees for dear life
ahead of his enemy. Both accounts are self-contained, and though they contain different details and
emphases, they are presented as two versions of the same event. Ashkenazim recite both the prose
and poetic accounts and thus conclude the historical narrative with the victory song. Sephardim
recite only the song. The prose account consists of a prologue, setting forth the background of
the event, and a description of the battle that follows. The poetic version is a more variegated
series of voices and reflections. Its principal concern is to praise God, the participating tribes,
and the individuals who did their people proud. As in the military epics of other cultures, this is
a song of glory for present and future generations.
Both versions of the Israelite victory portray God's intervention on behalf of His people. The
haftarah begins after a prologue in ludg. 4:1-3—where the new Canaanite menace is presented
as divine punishment for Israelite offenses against God, and the victory as a result of the people's
return to Him in supplication (they "cried out to the LORD" [v. 3]). Thus what is presented in
Scripture as a cycle of divine punishment and protection, corresponding to Israelite sin and re-
pentance, is deleted in the haftarah—which presents the victory solely as an expression of God's
protection of His people. N o sin is hinted at. As a result, the concluding reference to the period
of ease after the victory (5:31b) loses its theological point. For if the purpose of this phrase is
to signal a period between sins—a time of national faithfulness following the last manifestation
of divine power—in the present case it functions as a coda to the victory. (The full theological
framework represented by ludg. 4:1-3 and 5:31 is found elsewhere in the Book of ludges—for
example, 3:12-15 and 30, which frame the Ehud episode preceding our haftarah; and 6:1-7
and 8:28, which frame the Gideon narrative immediately following it.)
The Israelite victory in the haftarah is distinguished by content, style, and theological emphasis.
The prose account uses the narrative voice. It opens with Deborah sitting in judgment near a
sacred palm tree in the northern territory of Ephraim. Her charismatic power is indicated by the
seeming offhand remark that the Israelites went up to her seat of justice, and it is subsequently
confirmed by her ability to rouse the troops for battle. Nevertheless, it is her status as prophet-
ess that has particular weight in the narrative. The haftarah begins with her summoning Barak
and telling him that he should mobilize soldiers from the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun, for
God has revealed that He will bring victory to His people (ludg. 4:6-7). Later on, after Barak
summons his troops (along with Deborah) to Mount Tabor, the prophetess refers to this oracle
in her exhortation to the commander to act (v. 14).
COMMENTS
Judges4:4. Deborah... a prophetess. Deborah is portrayed with seer-like qualities, and this
prowess may have been expressed in her judgments as well (v. 5). Rabbinic tradition lists seven
prophetesses in the Hebrew Bible (B. Megillah 14a).6 Picking up on the phrase "at that time,"
which follows reference to her role as a prophetess, Kimhi observed that "her prophecy was for her
time, for there is no evidence that she prophesied for the future." It was also remarked that because
Deborah boasted ofherselfin her song, the Holy Spirit departed for a time (B. Pesahim 66b).
7. Jabin King of Canaan, with a military force of 900 iron chariots (v. 13). See also
the Comment to verse 24.
11. Kenites A nomadic tribe that associated with Israel (see Num. 24:22). Heber had
left the main group in the south and wandered northward to at least Kedesh.
Hobab, father-in-law ofMoses Here a Kenite, ancestor of Heber. According to Num. 10:
29, Moses' father-in-law was Hobab son of Reuel the Midianite. But Exod. 2:18 speaks of Reuel
as Moses' father-in-law; and Exod. 18:1 speaks of lethro priest of Midian as Moses' father-in-law.
Rabbinic tradition tried to resolve this variation by assuming that lethro had seven names. 7
13-14. The site of the battle is the Valley of lezreel, in the Galilee. Harosheth-goiim is
near Megiddo, the Wadi Kishon rises in the southeast of the valley and flows into the Mediter-
ranean, and Mount Tabor is also in the valley.
24. Kingjabin of Canaan He is also called "King labin of Hazor" (losh. 11:1; cf.
ludg. 4:2). The title "King of Canaan" is old and attested centuries earlier in the tablets from
73 HAFTARAH FOR BE-SHALLAH
the ancient city of Mari (where one king even has the name Jabin). 8 According to Judg. 5:19,
Jabin was only one member of a coalition of "kings of Canaan" led by Sisera. This points to one
significant difference between the battles reported in Josh. 11:1-15 and Judges 4-5. The relation-
ship between the two battles has been much discussed. Some scholars have regarded them as a
doublet, but it would seem best to regard the two events as distinct: the first being a report of
conquest and destruction of enemy strongholds, with the second an account of the routing of a
regional coalition after the early settlement period. 9 Only thereafter was King Jabin thoroughly
"destroyed" (Judg. 4:24).
Judges 5:1. On that day Deborah and Barak... sang The victors sing in praise to God
and the people. Rabbinic tradition records "Ten Songs," which span the sacred history of Israel.
The first was sung during the Passover feast itself (Isa. 30:29), and the second was the "Song
at the Sea" in this week's pamshah (Exodus 15). The song of Deborah and Barak is listed as the
sixth song; while the tenth and final one will be the messianic song of the future (Isa. 42:10).
See Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Be-shallah l. 1 0
2. locksgo untrimmed Apparently an expression of dedication; compare Num. 6:5:
"Throughout the term ofhis vow as nazirite, no razor shall touch his head" [Transl.].
3-5. The Targum perceived an allusion here to Sinai and the giving of the Torah (cf.
Rashi). Psalm 68 also sings a song of historical praise that refers to the event of Sinai in language
similar to Judg. 5:4-5 (cf. Ps. 68:5, 8) and, like Judg. 5:9, also intones a communal blessing to
God (Ps. 68:20-36).
6-7. In contrast to the theological prologue in Judg. 4:1-3 (not part of the haftarah recita-
tion), wherein the national crisis is presented as divine punishment for apostasy, the song simply
gives the more mundane situation: the Canaanites had blocked the caravan routes and marauded
the surrounding settlements. Thus "deliverance [perazon] ceased" (5:7). This rendering seems to
follow the sense of the corresponding Arabic noun and an old Greek tradition (lit., "leadership"
or "championship"), 11 but medieval Jewish commentators quite consistently link it to Hebrew
perazot, "unwalled cities" (cf. Zech. 2:8 and Esther 9:19; see Rashi, Kimhi, R. Joseph Kara, and
R. Isaiah de Trani). The song presumably intends a complex pun, indicating at once the physical
distress of the people and the lack of a military savior.
6. Shamgar The previous chieftain. See Judg. 3:31.
7. you arose Hebrew kamti, archaic second-person singular feminine [Transl.].
13. The LORD'S people Reading 'am (with patah) Adonai as in many Hebrew manuscripts
[Transl.]. Alternatively, OJPS follows the Masoretic punctuation, reading 'am (with kamatz) as
the end of the first phrase: "Then made He a remnant to have dominion over the nobles and the
people; the LORD made me have dominion over the mighty."
14. -whose motsare inAmalek Hebrew shorsham ba-'amalek. This is a puzzling comment
about some citizens of Ephraim. The Septuagint reads "valley" ('emek) for 'amalek; moderns
have proposed similar emendations. One solution that continued into the Middle Ages was to
interpret the passage as referring to heroes who stemmed from Ephraim and fought against
Amalek (e. g., Joshua and Saul; see Exod. 17:8-13 and 1 Samuel 15, respectively). Compare
Targum Jonathan, Rashi, and Kimhi.
21. them That is, the kings of Canaan (v. 19) [Transl.].
27. At herfeet he sank The phrases here have an intensifying redundancy (Kimhi),
rhythmically echoing the violent hammering of the murder (v. 26).
31. all Tour enemies In the context of the haftarah, the refrain calling for the defeat
of "all" God's enemies has an eschatological ring (cf. Rashi and R. Joseph Kara, following the
Targum).
HAFTARAH FOR BE-SHALLAH 74
Hisfriends Hebrew'ohavav; literally, "His loved ones." In Hebrew and Akkadian, this
is a standard designation for "treaty-partners." 12
The Song of Deborah and Barak (Judges 5) is read along with the Songs of Moses-and-Israel
and of Miriam (Exodus 15) as two celebrations of divine salvation in history. Moses' Song at
the Sea, which depicts how God "threw . . . into panic" (va-yaham [Exod. 14:24]) the Egyptian
army, occurs at the beginning of national liberation and anticipates settlement in the Land and
the building of the Temple (Exod. 15:15-17). It concludes with the climactic hope in God's
enduring kingship (Exod. 15:18). Correspondingly, Deborah's song, which celebrates how God
"threw . . . into panic" (va-yaham [Judg. 4:15]) the Canaanite foe, occurs within the settlement
period. It also concludes on an eschatological note (Judg. 5:31).
Rabbinic tradition found further links between the pamshah and haftarah of Be-shallah.
According to one legend, when the Egyptians were drowned in the sea, God demanded that the
prince of the sea cast up the dead for all to see. The prince complained at this loss of spoil, and
as recompense God offered the Wadi of Kishon as a security. This pledge was redeemed when
the waters of the brook flowed in torrents and swallowed up the Canaanite army in the days of
Sisera (B. Pesahim 118a). Thus was a link between the two "drownings" imagined. This tradi-
tion may be reflected in the Targum as well, which explains the reference to the Wadi Kishon as
nahal kedumin (NJPS: "the raging torrent" [Judg. 5:21]) with the remark: "the brook at which
miracles were wrought for Israel in ancient times [kadmin].13 Another midrash asserts the same,
dating Sisera's defeat to the first night ofPassover (Panim Aherim, A, 6). 14 These various events
are noted in the paraphrase ofDeborah's song found in Pseudo-Philo (32:16-17). 1 5
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH6:l-7:6;9:5-6
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 6:1-13
For an overall discussion of the prophecies of Isaiah 1-39 and a consideration of their historical
setting, literary style, and theological teachings, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39" in "Over-
view of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." For discussions of other prophecies from
Isaiah 1-39 recited as haftarah selections, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah has a pivotal position in the opening chapters of the Book of Isaiah. Following
the arraignments for sin and the threatened dooms in chapters 1-5, Isaiah receives a more dire
commision in chapter 6: to ensure the punishment of the nation. Repentance is no longer a pos-
sibility. In contrast to Isaiah's earlier promise that the "repentant ones" of Zion "shall be saved"
in the judgment (Isa. 1:27), Isaiah is now told to speak to the nation in such a way as "to render
them blinder, deafer, and more insensitive"1—"lest, seeing with its eyes and hearing with its ears"
the people might "repent [va-shav] and save itself" (6:10). Only after the general purgation will
a remnant be restored (ve-shavah) —sprung from seed like shoots on a ravaged tree (v. 13). 2 A
subsequent sequence of oracles also promises the survival of the House of David. Isaiah urges
King Ahaz (743-727 B.C.E.) "to be firm and . . . calm" before the Aramean alliance against him
(7:1-6), for his descendant has been born through whom God will establish the throne of David
in eternal peace (9:5-6). The haftarah is thus composed of two parts: one national, the other
royal. Both promise a future for the people.
The haftarah according to the Ashkenazic rite comprises two parallel but continuous prophecies.
Each part begins with a dated superscription, has a sequence of doom or danger, and concludes
with the promise of renewal. Thus, despite imminent dangers of divine punishment and political
threat, there is the promise that the people and the royal line will survive—the people as a holy
seed, the kingship as a seat of justice. Indeed, this feature of survival and renewal is the climactic
concern of each unit: on the one hand, the regeneration of a shoot from its stock reverses the
initial oracle that focused on divine punishment (part 1, Isa. 6:10-13); on the other, the conclu-
sion to the royal oracle skips over its immediate textual sequel (in 7:7-9) for the sake of a more
Utopian promise of restoration (part 2, 9:5-6). Such "skipping" is found in other haftarah read-
ings, for similar positive purposes. The editorial principle is tannaitic. 3 In the present case, the
jump from Isa. 7:1-6 to 9:5-6 gives the prophecy a messianic dimension—extending it beyond
the immediate circumstances of King Ahaz into the future. Hence, the divine promise of the
text is not limited to one historical time but addresses the hope of anyone who would read this
prophecy in faith. The Sephardic reading has a more modest national hope: the survival and
regeneration of the people oflsrael (it concludes at6:13).
The haftarah in Isa. 6 : 1 - 7 : 6 and 9 : 5 - 6 thus moves between two types of sovereignty: divine
kingship in heaven ("the King L O R D of Hosts" [ 6 : 5 ] ) and royal (messianic) kingship on earth.
Within that overall framework are stressed a holy God who punishes injustice and a just king
who will establish with divine aid peace and equity for the "holy seed" ( 6 : 1 3 ) . What is more,
God's grace will transfigure this king, as we can see from the messianic epithets by which he is
called: "The Mighty God ['elgibbor] is planning grace [pek'yo'etz]; the Eternal Father, a peaceable
ruler" ( 9 : 5 ) . Indeed, according to some medieval commentators, each of the first four expressions
are separate epithets of God—as the parallels in Isa. 1 0 : 2 1 (Jelgibbor) and 2 8 : 2 9 (;hiphl'etzah
["Who gives wondrous counsel"; NIPS: "His counsel is unfathomable"]) suggest. 4 Whether it
is the case that } elgibbor ("Mighty God") andpele } yo'etz ("Wondrous counselor") are distinct
divine titles given to the king, or should be construed as epithetic designations of royal power
and wisdom (Ibn Ezra), there remains a striking overlap between the two possibilities. This
fact indicates the divine-like character of the messianic king, whose enthronement is the earthly
embodiment of transcendent ideals. The judging God in heaven thus serves as the model for the
ideal kingdom on earth.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 6:2. Seraphs stood in attendance Isaiah's vision resembles other scenes of divine
enthronement, amid a retinue of heavenly beings (1 Kings 22:19-23; Dan. 7:9-14). In Ezekiel
1, fiery figures carry the throne, whereas in Isa. 6:2, the flaming attendants (the seraphs) appear
to stand "before" or "near Him" (God). This makes best contextual sense of the Hebrew phrase
mi-ma'al lo (understanding ma'al as like W in Gen. 45:1 and 1 Kings 22:19; cf. Isaiah di Trani
and Ibn Ezra). One could hardly assume that the attending retinue stood "above" (mi-ma'al) the
divine King. Ancient tradition construed the angels as surrounding the throne (cf. the Septuagint
and Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 4). Ibn Ezra concurs, but he also sought to harmonize Isaiah's vision
with Ezekiel 1, by his suggestion that the previous verse does not refer to God as "exalted"—but
to the heavenly throne as "raised up" or "borne aloft" (nissa' [Isa. 6:1]). 15
Hispresencefills all the earth\ God's "presence" (kavod) refers to the manifestation of
the divine Glory in history (Lev. 10:3; Isa. 40:5). Indeed, such appearances have a sensible and
numinous aspect—something akin to the radiant penumbra (or melammu) of the divine mentioned
in ancient Mesopotamian sources.22 This distinct presence often has a marked anthropomorphic
appearance. The visionary experiences ofMoses (Exod. 33:22-23) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 1:28) are
striking cases in point. But they pose a problem of interpretation for Isa. 6:3. Just what is the
meaning of the seraphs' praise (that "His kavod fills all the earth")? Is something more intended
here than a glorification of divine immanence or omnipresence? There is no conclusive answer;
however, based on the previous sources, it appears that the reference is to a world-encompassing
figure in heaven. Seated on high, surrounded by angels, the lower train of God's garment fills the
earthly Temple—hence the seraphs proclaim that His kavod fills the entire earth. A further trace
of this notion is also palpable in God's own remark to the postexilic community: "The heaven
is My throne and the earth is My footstool: Where could you build a house for Me, what place
could serve as My abode?" (Isa. 66:1).
13. a tenth part NIPS renders the phrase against the Masoretic accents: repentance will
occur for a small remnant, who are like a "ravaged" (ba'er) tree whose stump gives forth new
growth. The "tenth part" will become a "holy seed." Alternatively, it is not the human remnant
that "repents" (ve-shavah) but rather the desecrated land (w. 11-12), which "will again" be
restored as a "grazing area" (reading: ba'ir) for the new settlement. This situation is likened to
new shoots. Some medievals read the "tenth part" more allegorically. According to Ibn Bal'am,
it refers to the ten tribes (which will return); Ibn Ezra saw a reference here to the ten kingdoms
(the "tenth part" being the final, messianic one).
Isaiah 7:3. Shear-jashub Meaning "[only] a remnant will turn back," that is, repent;
compare6:13; 10:21 [Transl.].
4-6. the son ofRemaliah... the son ofTabeel To refer to a man only as "the son o f . . ."
is slighting; compare 1 Sam. 10:11; 20:27, 30, 31 [Transl.].
Isaiah 9:5. Surely Hebrew ki. Rabbinic tradition, as reflected in this haftarah, juxta-
posed the plotters' royal pretender (7:5-6) to a future messianic king designated by God (9:
5-6). Rendering ki as "surely" clarifies the liturgical contextualization that connects the two
passages. (In its original setting in the Book of Isaiah, ki marked a justification clause and is
often rendered as "for.")
The Mighty God is planninggrace This is one of a series of royal epithets, similar to
those known from the ancient Near East. It is linked at the conclusion to a vision of the messianic
king who rules with justice (v. 6). This is a standard portrayal and found in biblical liturgies (cf.
Ps. 72:1-2). The ideals of might and power, combined with justice and peace, are repeated in
Isa. 11:2-4.
The NIPS translation follows the Masoretic accents, against the syntax. This difficult phras-
ing tries to avoid a title like "Mighty God" for the human king (but cf. Isa. 10:21). Thus Rashi
and Kimhi refer the opening epithets to God. In their view, it is He who gives the child the
name "Prince of Peace." Ibn Ezra also emphasizes the series of short titles, but explains 'elgibbor
("mighty god") as a royal epithet indicating the powerful nature of the expected king (Hezekiah).
His reading is anticipated by Aquila and his lewish colleagues in their Greek translations. A
quite novel solution occurs in the Qumran Thanksgiving Scroll (1QH 3:10), where the ideal
ruler is called a "wonderful counselor with His Might [Hmgevumto]."23 The italicized phrase
thus transforms the difficult 'elgibbor into Godi'sgevumh (Power; Might), which will be with
the "counselor." This gevumh is a well-known hypostatic aspect of God Himself in classical
rabbinic sources. 24
Thematic and verbal parallels connect the readings. At the thematic level, thepnrnshnh (Exodus
18-20) first presents a structure for justice and judgment (chap. 18) and then a revelation of
God's instruction to the nation (chaps. 19-20). The haftarah presents these themes in more
personal terms. The prophet receives a vision of God's majesty and words of instruction to the
people (Isa. 6:1-12) and then the promise of a new era of justice to be inaugurated by a messianic
king. The two passages stand at opposite historical poles: the past time of covenantal origins
and the future time of messianic justice. What Moses inaugurates, the prophet Isaiah may only
proclaim: a kingdom of justice under God. In the present, the people bidden to be a "kingdom
of priests and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:6) have failed their task and are pronounced "unclean."
Only in the future may they again become a "holy seed," after their punishment and purgation
(Isa. 6:5, 11-13).
The two passages are also interrelated by language and imagery. The Torah presents the his-
torical God of the Exodus, who brought forth His people "on eagles' wings" (knnfei neshnrim)
that the nation might observe the covenant and become a "holy nation" (goy kndosh) (Exod. 19:
4-6). At the revelation itself, God appears "in the sight [be-'einei] of all the people" (Exod. 19:
11), while the whole mountain "was all in smoke ['nshnn]" and "trembled violently" (v. 18). The
people are then warned not break their legitimate bounds "to gaze" (lir'ot) directly upon God in
all His numinous splendor (v. 21). "All the people witnessed [ro'im]" the smoke and lightning
flashes, "and when the people saw it [vn-ynr']" they "fell back" or trembled (vn-ynnu'u) from
afar (20:15).
By contrast, the haftarah portrays a personal vision of God. The prophet stands in the Temple
of Jerusalem and envisages the Lord enthroned in heaven—surrounded by a retinue of winged
(,kenn-fnyim) figures of fire who intone the awesome holiness of God (kndosh) (Isa. 6:2-3). Re-
verberating to this cosmic chant, the doorposts of the earthly Temple "would shake" (vn-ynnu'u),
and the shrine "kept filling with smoke {'^nshnn']"' (v. 4). The prophet is thereupon overcome at
having "beheld" (rn'u 'tinny) the Lord of Hosts and dismayed by his own impurity and that of his
people (v. 5). Ritually purified by an angel, Isaiah then receives his instruction—and the counsel
that Israel would fall like a ravaged tree, but later regenerate from its own stock: a "holy seed"
{zern' kodesh [v. 13]). the remnant people of the "holy" Lord of Hosts. This ancient promise has
hovered over the decimations ofjewish history, giving hope to the present and future.
For Jeremiah's life and message and a discussion of the Book of Jeremiah as a whole, see "The
Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." For discus-
sions of other prophecies of Jeremiah recited as haftarah selections, see the listing in "Index of
Biblical Passages."
The setting of the haftarah is during the final siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon. This is indicated by the paragraphs that precede the haftarah and by details in the haftarah
itself. According to Jer. 34:1-7, a word of God came to the prophet "when King Nebuchadrezzar
of Babylon and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth and all the people under his sway,
were waging war against Jerusalem and all its towns" (v. 1; cf. w. 6-7). The oracle announced
to King Zedekiah of Judah is that Jerusalem would fall—though he would survive and die in
peace (w. 2-5). According to biblical and extra-biblical sources, the Babylonian invasion began
on the tenth of Tevet in the ninth year of King Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:1; Jer. 39:1); this date
corresponds to 15 January 588 B.C.E. 1
81 HAFTARAH FOR MISHPATIM
The national threat presumably elicits the statements reported in Jer. 34:8-12, at the begin-
ning of the haftarah. We learn that another word of God came to Jeremiah "after King Zedekiah
had made a covenant with all the people in Jerusalem"—to release their male and female slaves
(w. 8-9). The slaveholders initially comply with this royal edict of manumission, whose practi-
cal effect would be to add manpower for the defense of Jerusalem (v. 10). 2 But the slaves are
subsequently remanded by their compatriots, who "forced them into slavery again" (v. 11). This
new action may have taken place during a respite between sieges, after the Babylonian withdrawal
mentioned in 34:21. This retreat was in part due to the Babylonian fear of an Egyptian attack.
Such a threat was real enough, for at the time of national peril King Zedekiah had appealed to
the Egyptian Pharaoh Hofra for aid (Ezek. 17:11-18). This "report" was apparently sufficient
to frighten off the Babylonian foe. Nevertheless, Ezekiel roundly rebukes Judean hopes in the
Egyptian ally (see Ezek. 29:1; dated to 7 January 587 B.C.E.), and Jeremiah predicts the retreat
of "the army of Pharaoh" (Jer. 37:7). In the end Egyptian support proves ineffective (Ezek. 30:
20-21), and King Nebuchadnezzar returns to the walls of lerusalem. leremiah envisions this
turn of events (ler. 37:8) and proclaims it God's judgment for the people's violation of the edict
of manumission (ler. 34:13-22). A final word of hope projects reconciliation between Israel and
God (ler. 33:25-26) after the "desolation" to come (34:22).
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 34:8. to proclaim a •release The idiom is also found in Lev. 25:10, in connec-
tion with the lubilee year restitution of property and freedom (cf. Ezek. 46:17). 10 Zedekiah's
proclamation may therefore be part of a general sabbatical amnesty. Alternatively, it is an ad hoc
edict of debt release akin to the mishamm enactments promulgated by Mesopotamian kings. 11
The proclamation of"release" recurs in Isa. 61:1, where the subjectis an eschatological restitu-
tion of benefits to the downtrodden and enslaved.
9. that no one should keep hisfellowjudean enslaved The Hebrew syntax is difficult. R.
David Kimhi proposed understanding the problematic second clause "by a ludean, his brother,
a man" (NIPS: "his fellow ludean") as an explication of the preceding prohibition (lit., "that no
one should enslave them"). In his view, therefore, the formulation is an appositional clause that
articulates by an ascending series of references all potential violators of the law (be he:"a ludean,
his brother, [or any] one").
14. seventh year That is, of servitude. Literally, "After a period of seven years"; compare
Deut. 15:1, 12 [Transl.].
16. you... have profaned My name ttebrewva-tehallelu 'etshemi. The verb hillel (profane;
desecrate, defile) is elsewhere employed by leremiah with the object "land" (ler. 16:18). But the
verb is frequently used with the divine name in the Holiness Code (cf. Lev. 18:21; 19:12) or
in prophetic sources influenced by priestly traditions (cf. Ezek. 20:39; 36:20-23; Mai. 1:12).
Accordingly, the present usage (in connection with the remanding of manumitted slaves) is more
than a theological metaphor. It concretely refers to the desecration of the covenant performed
"before Me in the House which bears My name" (ler. 34:15); that is, it may allude to an oath
sworn by God's name. In rabbinic sources, the verb is also used both in connection with the
profanation of sacred things (cf. M. Avot 3:11) and the divine name—particularly through acts
of idolatry (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 22:6). 12 Thus from earliest times, the phrase hillul ha-Shem
(and its variants) was used to indicate a desecration of God's name consonant with disgracing
the lewish religion as such (Tosefta Yoma 5:6-8). 1 3
HAFTARAH FOR BE-SHALLAH 84
forced them A technical term for economic oppression. Compare Neh. 5:5. It can also
be used to indicate the physical subjugation ofland (Gen. 1:28) or women (Esther 7:8).
18. [like] the calf The translation infers a comparison, much as if ha-'egel (the calf) were
ka-'egel (like the calf). This reading is justified insofar as a comparative particle (ke/a) is required
on analogy with Near Eastern imprecation formulas ("may I be like") recited when sealing a
covenant with a ritual (see the discussion under Content and Meaning). The particle is repeatedly
used elsewhere by Jeremiah when explaining the meaning of his symbolic acts (cf. Jer. 13:11;
18:6; 19:11; 51:64). Finally, Rashi and Kimhi have noted the similarity between the practices
mentioned in Jer. 34:18-19 and Gen. 15:9-10. In both cases, the covenant-act is dramatized
by one of the principals "passing" ('aver/im) "between" (beyn) the "part/s" (beter/betarim) of a
severed "calf" ('egel/'eglah).
The haftarah and pamshah are linked by their citation of rules dealing with the manumission of
Hebrew slaves. As indicated above, Jer. 34:9-14 is most closely connected with the formulation
found in Deut. 15:12-18. Thus Exod. 21:2-6 (at the beginning of Mishpatim) deals with the
purchase of a male Hebrew as a slave ('ivri [Exod. 21:2]) and indicates manumission by the phrase
"go \yetze}] free [la-hofshi]n (w. 2, 5) or just "leave" (w. 3-4). By contrast, the Deuteronomic
law and its Jeremianic reflex include male and female slaves (ha-'ivri ve-ha-'ivriyyah) in their rul-
ing, and both speak of debtor release by the expression "set free" (the verb shalleah + hofshi; cf.
Deut. 15:13, 18 and Jer. 34:9-11, 14). The expression "I do not want to leave" (lo} }etze}) in
Deut. 15:16 does not contradict this point, for this verse is in fact a citation from Exod. 21:5.
Finally, both Deut. 15:12 and Jer. 34:14 refer to the debtor as one "who may be sold [or: who
sells himself] to you" {yimmakher lakh). The verb for "sale" in Exod. 21:2 is kanah.
If, despite the close verbal tally between Jer. 34:9-14 and Deut. 15:12-18, the Sages never-
theless chose to recite the prophecy of Jeremiah with the portion of Mishpatim (where the rules
about the manumission of male slaves constitute the first paragraph, Exod. 21:2-6), there must
be good reason. It would seem that this is to be found in Jer. 34:13—just prior to the citation
of Exod. 21:2 in Jer. 34:14. In Jer. 34:13, the prophet says, in the name of God: "I made a
covenant with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, the house of bond-
age, saying" (v. 14 follows). N o w since no special covenant regarding slavery and manumission
is recorded in the Bible, it makes sense to follow Abravanel's interpretation. He suggested that
the passage refers to the manumission rule along with the other commandments of Sinai, which
are collectively ratified as a "covenant" in Exod. 24:7. The prophet has therefore singled out the
manumission rule in light of his own situation, andjust this link between the 'manumission 'rule and
Sinai explains the rabbinic decision to recite Jer. 34:8-22 togetherwith Exod. 21:1-24:18. The
rabbinic tally is thus both thematic (manumission) and conceptual ("covenant").
In its particulars, Jeremiah's sin and judgment speech refers to a specific infraction (reneging
on manumission) drawn from the civil code. Generally, prophetic denunciations are sweeping
critiques of cultic abuses and moral insensitivity. The emphasis on one misdemeanor is therefore
somewhat unusual. Even more striking is the connection drawn between the exile and the people's
disregard of a covenantal law. But this too is characteristic of Jeremiah. In another discourse, he
links the exile to the nation's disregard of the Sabbath and its proscriptions (Jer. 17:19-27).
The divine concern to limit debt bondage (features of both theparashah and haftarah) is an
expression of the Bible's overall concern for human dignity. It may be observed that virtually all
the Pentateuchal rules of slavery, debts, and indenture inhibit economic enrichment at the expense
of other persons (see Exod. 21:2-6; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15). Toward this end, the rules
repeatedly invoke the restoration of ancestral property rights on the land and emphasize inviolable
human rights in society. These rights are derived from divine authority but depend upon social
enactment and enforcement. Jeremiah's diatribe indicates that the people's disregard for human
For the contents and theology of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall content,
theology, and historiography, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted
in the Haftarot Cycle" See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken
from the Book of Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah describes the beginning of the construction of Solomon's Temple, dated by
scholars at around 958 B.C.E. To accomplish his task, Solomon struck a deal with Hiram, king
of Tyre, whereby cedars and cypress trees from Lebanon would be exchanged for ludean wheat
and beaten oil. This arrangement is detailed in the verses preceding the haftarah and is summed
up in its prologue (1 Kings 5:26): "The L O R D had given Solomon wisdom, as He had promised
him. There was friendship [shalom] between Hiram and Solomon, and the two of them made
a treaty." This verse suggests that the divine wisdom granted Solomon (see 3:12) included po-
litical and executive acumen (Ralbag). Other descriptions of Solomon's wisdom emphasize his
judicial discrimination (3:28), administrative capacity (5:1-9), and cleverness in parable and
song (5:10-14). These various editorial notices of wisdom integrate the anthology of activities
that exemplify Solomon's genius.
Following the prologue, the haftarah describes the forced labor levied by the crown and the
royal order to quarry stone for the Temple's foundations. Together with the wood from Lebanon
(1 Kings 5:20-25), all is now ready for the building. Architectural details of the Temple are then
enumerated. The reading concludes with an epilogue in which a divine word exhorts Solomon to
obey the Law— so that God's promises to David might be fulfilled and His "will abide among
the children oflsrael" (6:11-13).
In this literary structure, references to two divine promises frame the preparations for and
beginnings of the Temple-building: the bequest of wisdom to Solomon, in the prologue; and
the conditional grant of divine favor to David's lineage, in the epilogue. Thus it is the religious
covenant with God rather than the political alliance with Hiram that protects the realm. If the
king will obey the divine commandments, the dynasty will be secure and God "will abide among
the children oflsrael" and "never forsake" them (6:13). Solomon could hardly be surprised by
this revelation; a similar exhortation was enunciated by his father David on his deathbed (1
Kings 2:2-4). 1
COMMENTS
1 Kings 5:26. Friendship Hebrew shalom. The technical sense of this term indicates the
loyalty and accord basic to treaties. Thus verse 26 adds that Hiram and Solomon "made a treaty"
(va-yikhretu berit). See also the idioms beriti shalom, "My pact of friendship" (Num. 25:12), and berit
shelomi, "My covenant of friendship" (Isa. 54:10), used to indicate the divine accords with Phinehas
(the priest) and David, respectively. The term berit is also regularly used to indicate political pacts.
Thus Isaac negotiates an accord with the king of the Philistines (Gen. 26:28; with conditions, ce-
remonies, and oaths [w. 29-30]), and Ahab negotiates a set/ement with Ben-hadad of Aram (note
the compliance clause; 1 Kings 20:34). See also 1 Kings 15:19 and Hos. 12:2.
9. When hefinished... he paneled The verb, "He finished," va-yekha-llehu, recalls the state-
ment at the completion of the construction of the Tabernacle that "Moses had finished [va-yekhal]
the work" (Exod. 40:33). In turn, both cases echo the statement that "God finished" (va-yekha-l) His
"work" of creation on the seventh day (Gen. 2:2). (For a comparable link between world-building
and shrine-building, see Tanhuma Pekudei 2.) The reference to the cedar-paneled House of God
alludes to 2 Sam. 7:2 and David's motivation to build a permanent dwelling for the Ark.
11. the word ofthe LORD came Hebrew dava-r (word) is regularly used in prophetic
sources to indicate a divine revelation. The Targum therefore glosses it as a prophetic word. Kimhi
was more circumspect and suggests a mediated revelation to the king (from the prophet Ahijah
of Shilo). Don Isaac Abravanel notes that this prophecy interrupts the narrative (the details of
the building continue in 6:14, after the haftarah ends) and adds that it would have fit better
either at the beginning or end of the building account. Abravanel's solution to the literary issue
is theological. In his view, the conditions for God's cultic presence (the king's obedience to the
Law) have been thematized within the account of the building of the Temple.
12. ifyoufollow Three conditions of royal compliance, " i f y o u [1] follow My laws and
[2] observe My rules and [3] faithfully keep My commandments," lead to three divine guarantees:
The Torah reading contains a divinely revealed blueprint of the Tabernacle, along with specifica-
tions for its construction (Exod. 25:9ff). Material support for the shrine comes through freewill
donations by the people (25:2). God further tells Moses (25:8): "Let them [the people] make
Me a sanctuary that I may dwell [ve-shakhanti] among them [be-tokham])"-, that is, the building
of the shrine is the condition for divine indwelling. By contrast, in the haftarah, there is no divine
blueprint of the building, and the presence of God in the building turns on specific covenantal
preconditions. After the construction, the word of the Lord comes to Solomon, saying: "With
regard to this House you are building—if you follow My laws and observe My rules and faith-
fully keep My commandments, I will fulfill for you the promise that I gave to your father David:
I will abide [ve-shakhanti] among [be-tokh] the children of Israel, and I will never forsake My
people Israel" (1 Kings 6:12-13). Under the new dispensation, God is drawn into the human
realm through covenantal obedience and service.5
Theparashah and haftarah mark two phases of Israelite worship. The first is centered around
the portable Tabernacle in the desert, where the Lord could dwell as He chose; the other is
centered around a permanent House in Jerusalem, for the Lord's fixed earthly dwelling. More
figuratively, these two phases also symbolize two poles of the religious spirit—the ever-new
journey of spiritual search, and the always-present embodiment of tradition. The linking of the
pamshah and haftarah does not require a choice between these models, but rather directs atten-
tion to their difference and potential interaction.
For Ezekiel's life and times and for a discussion of the contents, style, and theology of the Book
of Ezekiel, see "The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." For a discussion of the other haftarah readings taken from Ezekiel's prophecies, see the
listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
This haftarah is one of three haftarah selections taken from the program of restoration, found
in Ezekiel 40-48. 1 After an intense period of rebuke and warning, 2 beginning some five years after
his own exile to Babylon in 597 B.C.E.,3 the prophet's oracles of doom had become a reality. In the
year 586 B.C.E., Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple burned, and much of the population deported
to Babylon. Ezekiel continued to prophesy within this exilic community and proclaimed a series
of prophecies of consolation. Through such imagery as resurrected bones and apocalyptic wars,
he projected a future in which the exiled nation would be restored to Zion, and the holy places
purged of sin and renewed (see Ezekiel 35-39). The climax of these prophecies is a blueprint of
the future Temple (and its new order of worship), along with a ground plan for resettlement in
the homeland (and a reapportionment of inheritance holdings in an equitable manner) (Ezekiel
40-48). 4 In this new order, the great altar of sacrifices is central. A description of the dimensions
of this altar and its priestly dedication is the core of the present haftarah.
HAFTARAH FOR TETZAWEH 88
The haftarah provides a transition between Ezekiel's description of the return of God's Pre-
sence to the Shrine (Ezek. 43:1-9) and all the priestly rules that follow (chaps. 44-46). This
transition is marked by a return of the divine voice. In the preceding vision of the future Temple,
the prophet was instructed by an angelic guide (chaps. 40-42); but in Ezek. 43:10-27, after
the return of the Glory, God speaks directly to Ezekiel. He is told to convey the preceding ac-
count of the Temple to the nation and is personally informed of the dimensions of the altar and
all that will pertain to its consecration. In this way, Ezekiel emerges as a mediator of the cultic
order—like Moses before him. The prominent position of the account of the altar at the outset
of these instructions indicates its axial significance in priestly religion, connecting heaven and
earth through the substances consumed thereon.
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 43:10. describe the Temple to the House oflsrael In accordance with his visions
as detailed in the three preceding chapters; compare 40:4:'"[N]ote well everything I am going
to show you . . . report everything you see to the House oflsrael'" [Transl.].
But let them be ashamed of their iniquities This verb and its nominal forms recur in
Ezekiel's prophecies (cf. 16:27, 54, 61; 32:24; 34:29; 36:6, 15, 32; 39:26). It is precisely the
announcement of the new Temple that would cause the people's remorse at their past sins, insofar
as this disclosure would manifest God's reconciliation with them (cf. Rashi).
The syntax is difficult, because the command to "measure its design" (v. 10) follows the in-
tended consequence of remorse at God's announcement. The syntax of verse 11 is also difficult,
because its opening clause "And if they are ashamed" (not "when," as in NJPS) is separated from
the command to "make known to them the plan" by the technical language of the plan that
interrupts these phrases without any grammatical connection. It would therefore seem that the
phrases dealing with shame in verses 10-11 have been inserted into an original divine command
that simply informed the people of the plan of the future Temple. Both phrases add the impor-
tant theological dimension of remorse as a condition for the people's hearing the architectural
plan, but the importance of this feature should not obscure the awkward way that it has been
incorporated into this passage.
12. Such are the instructions Literally, "this is the instruction." This conclusion of the
Temple blueprint uses a formula found in priestly instructions in the Torah (cf. Lev. ll:46f.; 14:
32, 57). Such formulas refer to the instructions as a torah, as here, and provide a brief resume of the
contents of the instruction. 8 In the present case, the words "enclosure" (lit., "roundabout"), "holy,"
and "top of the mountain" allude to the full descriptions found in Ezek. 40:2 and 42:20.
most holy Hebrew kodesh kodashim is used here for the entire Temple area—not just the
holiest recess of the Shrine. This usage underscores the comprehensive sanctity attributed to
Ezekiel's Temple. See R. Eliezer ofBeaugency.
13. cubit Hebrew 'amah; an ancient measure of length based on the forearm (18-22
inches). The "handbreadth" is another bodily measure.
15-16. altar hearth The upper hearth is twice called "the 'ari'eP (ha-'ari'el). The refer-
ence here to the altar as a har'el (mountain of God) is possibly a punning variation on it. The
meaning of 'ari'el has been debated. Possible renderings include "lion of God" and "(fire-)hearth
of God." 9 The latter would support the function of the object as a ritual hearth (cf. Targum).
This sense is further confirmed by an ancient Moabite inscription that reports the hijacking by
King Mesha of Moab of an Israelite object (from the city of Ashtarot) called an V/ ('ari'ell).1®
The prophet Isaiah refers to the city of Jerusalem as }ari}el (Isa. 29:lf., 7), possibly as a metonym
for the (altar hearth of the) Temple. 11
17. [upper] base Hebrew 'azarah, which in verse 14 means "ledge." The altar consists
of three blocks, each smaller than the one below it [Transl.].
The link between xhepa-mshah and haftarah lies in their descriptions of the main sacrificial altar
and its consecration. The desert altar was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and was
outfitted for transport (Exod. 27:1-8; 29:36-37). By contrast, Ezekiel's altar is a great fixed
presence, presumably made of stone blocks—though this and other details are absent. The juxta-
position of the accounts highlights the symmetry between Moses and Ezekiel as mediators of new
orders of cultic worship, and the explicit reference to God's command in both altar descriptions
establishes the divine authority of the two constructions.
The Tabernacle (built after the Exodus) and Ezekiel's Temple (to be built after the exile) have
temporal and spatial aspects. Viewed spatially, the Tabernacle and the Temple are the sacred sites
Samuel bar Abba taught: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "Even though the
Temple will be destroyed and the sacrifices annulled, do not forget how to perform the sacri-
fices, but be careful to study them repeatedly. And if you will be occupied with them, I shall
account it for you as if you were actually occupied with the sacrifices. And if you want to know
(that this is so), take note: When the Holy One, blessed be He, showed Ezekiel the plan of the
Temple what did He say? "Describe the Temple to the House oflsrael that they be ashamed of
their iniquities, 16 and let them measure its design" (Ezek. 43:10). Ezekiel (then) said before the
Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the Universe, until now we are in exile in the land of our
enemies, and You tell me to make known to Israel the plan of the Temple, and to 'write it down
before their eyes, that they may faithfully follow its entire plan and all its laws' (43:11)?! Can
they do this? Leave them be until they return from the exile, and then I shall go and tell them."
The Holy One, blessed be He, (then) said to Ezekiel: "Because My children are in exile, should
the building of My Temple be (completely) annulled? The reading thereof is as great as its (re)
building. (Therefore,) go and tell them to read the measure of the Temple in Scripture, and the
reward for their studious preoccupation with it is that I shall account this for them as if they were
(in fact) occupied with the building of the Temple (itself)." (Tanhuma Tzav 14)
The sanctity and atoning power of the ancient Temple service was activated in another way.
Noting that the great altar in Ezekiel 43 is called both an "altar" (mizbeah) and "table" (shulhtm)
in Ezek. 41:22, Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Eleazar both taught: "As long as the Temple existed
the altar provided atonement for Israel, but now (when the Temple is destroyed) a person's table
provides atonement" (B. Berakhot 55a). 17 Other Sages focused on spiritual sustenance. Not-
ing the same conjunction of altar and table in Ezek. 41:22, R. Simeon taught that when three
persons sit at table and discuss words of Torah, it is "as if they ate from the table of the Presence
[hn-Makom], may He be blessed" (M. Avot 3:3). 18
ASHKENAZIM I K I N G S 1 8 : l - 3 9
SEPHARDIM I KINGS 18:20-39
For the contents of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall contents, theology,
and historiography, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other haftarah selections taken from the Book of Kings, see
the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah takes place during the reign of King Ahab (871-852 B.C.E.), who, though an
Israelite, built a high altar to the Tyrian Baal in Samaria (1 Kings 16:29-33). 1 His Phoenician
wife, Jezebel, also promoted pagan worship and even persecuted and killed Israelite prophets in
the process. Little wonder that paganizing practices and worship went unchecked in the north,
and loyalty to the Lord alone was either compromised or lost. Some Israelites engaged in outright
worship of Baal; others expressed dual loyalties and developed syncretistic religious practices. The
haftarah focuses on Elijah's attempt to stem the tide of false worship and defame the prophets
of Baal. The event is the culmination of his prophetic career.
HAFTARAH FOR KI TISSA' 92
In the chapter prior to this great drama, Elijah blasted the faithless Ahab for his behavior and
swore: "As the L O R D lives, the God oflsrael whom I serve, there will be no dew or rain except
at my bidding" (1 Kings 17:1). Immediately thereafter, Elijah works a miracle of food for the
widow of Zarephath, who had sustained him on his journey (17:8-16), and also resurrects her
dead child, who "had no breath left in him" (w. 17-24). Both episodes testify to Elijah's divine
alliance, and both conclude with an acknowledgment of the prophet's powers (in the first case,
the narrator says that the food did not run out, "just as the L O R D had spoken through Elijah" [v.
16]; in the second, the widow exclaims, "Now I know that you are a man of God and that the
word of the L O R D is truly in your mouth" [v. 24]). 2
More important is the fact that both episodes testify to the supreme power of the God of
Israel: it is He who sustains life, not Baal. To dramatize this fact, Elijah is bidden by the Lord to
appear before Ahab in the third year of the drought. This divine call sets in motion an encounter
between the king and prophet and the religious showdown that follows.
The haftarah has two parts, with several subsections: 3
The haftarah ends with the liturgical credo that the Lord alone is God and does not include the
subsequent verses about the slaughter of the false prophets or the downpour that fulfills God's
prophecy (1 Kings 18:40-45). The Rabbis thus emphasize the dramatic defeat of false worship
and the ecstatic conversion of the people to God alone. Among the Ashkenazim, both the con-
test and its prologue are read as the haftarah (18:1-39); the Sephardim read only the contest
of faith (18:20-39).
In this drama, the challenges to the god Baal and to the people's faith are formulated in terms
of power over natural forces. Whereas Baal worshipers try to stimulate their god and the forces
of nature through bloodletting rituals and chants, the God of Israel triumphs supernaturally.
Victory is achieved through a fire that "descended" from the Lord (like the consecration of the
Tabernacle in Lev. 9:24)—and even "licked up the water that was in the trench" (1 Kings 18:
38). In pouring water on the altar, Elijah heightens the challenge of the contest and makes a
COMMENTS
1 Kings 18:1. in the third year That is, of the drought; in 17:1, Elijah said to Ahab,
"[There will be no dew or rain except at my bidding" [Transl.].
19. who eatatjezebel's table That is, who are maintained by lezebel [Transl.].
24.1 -will invoke the LORD by name According to the rules laid down, the adversaries will
invoke their god by name, and "the god who responds with fire, that one is God." This phraseology
has a marked liturgical dimension. Abraham appears as the first to call upon God by His name
(Gen. 1 2 : 8 ) , and such invocations are repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Psalms. Phrases like
"I cry aloud to the L O R D , and He answers me" (Ps. 3 : 5 ) and " O L O R D . . . when I cry, answer me
speedily" (Ps. 1 0 2 : 2 - 3 ) present the evidence from the human side; the divine assurance "When
he calls on Me, I will answer him" (Ps. 9 1 : 1 5 ) gives God's statement of support.
39. The LORD alone is God Hebrew YHWH hu' ha-'elohim. This proclamation of faith
marks a quintessential expression of monotheism. The pronoun hu' has an emphatic thrust. Its
force is dramatized in the divine assertions found in late prophecy, where God Himself vaunts
His power with the words: "understand that I am He [hu']: before Me no god was formed,
and after Me none shall exist" (Isa. 43:10; cf. v. 13). The exclusivist emphasis comes to the fore
in other assertions, where God says, "I am the L O R D and there is none else [ve-'ein W]; beside
Me there is no god" (Isa. 45:5; cf. v. 6). Both phrases are combined in Deut. 4:35, where the
people are polemically warned: "You have been shown to know [la-da'at] that the L O R D alone is
God [YHWHha'hu-'elohim]-, there is none ['ein 'od] beside Him." 1 5 The confession in 1 Kings
18:37 reflects this theological climate. 16 The more elaborated formulation found in Deut. 4:39,
"Know therefore this day and keep in mind that the L O R D alone is God in heaven above and on
earth below; there is no other," has entered the daily lewish liturgy. It forms the heart of the great
prayer Aleinu, which proclaims allegiance to God alone and anticipates a messianic time when all
idolatry will end and all people shall worship the Lord. 1 7 And once a year, at the conclusion of
the Yom Kippur liturgy, faithful lews repeat their ancestors' chant on Carmel, publicly proclaim-
ing seven times, "The LORD alone is God."
Theparashah and haftarah join two negative events in Israelite history: the apostasy of the people
before the Golden Calf and the worship of the Baals in the Land. Both represent a betrayal of
monotheism and require the intercession of a leader to restore proper worship. The Rabbis saw
a parallel and filled in the details. Both Moses and Elijah ascend a mountain and zealously fight
paganism—even invoking the ancestors in prayer (Exod. 32:13; 1 Kings 18:20-21, 36); both
are the agents of a covenantal affirmation by the people (Exod. 24:7; 1 Kings 18:39); and both
force the people to make a choice for God and to destroy the sinners (Exod. 32:26-27; 1 Kings
18:40). A catalogue of such parallels is articulated in midrashic tradition (see Yalkut Shimoni 2,
Kings, 209). Other Sages thought that Elijah's exclusive concern for God's honor set him apart
from prophets like leremiah and lonah (see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo' l). 1 8 In one notable
opinion, Elijah's angry zeal was condemned, and his failure to deal lovingly with his people cost
him his prophetic mantle (Yalkut Shimoni 2, Kings, 219). 19
An ironic echo further links the liturgical readings and injects added poignancy to the polemics.
In the pamshah, when Moses descends the mountain, he rejects loshua's sense that the people
were roused for war and says: "It is not ['ein] the sound [kol] of the tune ['anot] of triumph, or
the sound of the tune [ve-'ein kol'anot] of defeat; it is the sound of song [kol 'annot] that I hear!"
(Exod. 32:18). He thereupon becomes enraged, smashes the tablets and the Golden Calf, and
punishes the people. In the haftarah, quite another scene is evoked. Elijah first sets the terms
of the ordeal and then leaves the pagans to beseech their god. "They . . . invoked Baal by name
from morning until noon, shouting, 'O Baal, answer us ['aneinu\) \ ^But," the narrator interjects,
"there was no sound ['ein kol], and none who responded [ve-'ein 'onehY (1 Kings 18:26).
For the haftarah for Va-yak-hel for Sephardim, see next haftarah.
For the haftarah for Pekudei for Ashkenazim, see later.
For the haftarah for Va-yak-hel-Pekudei for Ashkenazim, see later.
For a discussion of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall contents, theology,
and historiography, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." See also the comments to the other haftarah readings taken from the Book of
Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah summarizes labor done for the House of the Lord. It follows an account of the
building of the Temple and a trade agreement for goods and services made with Hiram, king
of Tyre,1 as well as a description of the copper work cast for the Temple, as executed by another
Hiram, a master craftsman from Tyre.2 After a brief statement that "Hiram also made [va-ya'as]
the lavers, the scrapers, and the sprinkling bowls" (1 Kings 7:40a), the text continues with a list
of the achievements in two parts. Part 1 (w. 40b-45) notes the work completed by Hiram "for
King Solomon on the House of the LORD." This includes the columns; the globes of the capitals
with their network and rows of pomegranate design; lavers with their stands, and a giant tank
with its chariot-like support; and pails, scrapers, and sprinkling bowls (the items mentioned in v.
40a). The section concludes with a comment on the nature of the bronze used, how it was cast,
and its incalculable weight (w. 46-47). Part 2 (w. 48-50) shifts the focus from the craftsman to
the king and reports that "Solomon made [va-ya'as] all the furnishings that were in the House
of the LORD." These are then specified and include the altar; table for the display of bread; the
lampstands; assorted utensils, like lamps, tongs, ladles, and fire pans; the hinge sockets for the
doors of the Holy ofHolies; and the doors of the Great Hall. All these were made of gold.
Just as Solomon utilized the resources of one Tyrian Hiram (the king) to have wood transported
from the Lebanon and to have the hewn stones shaped by his masons for the Temple's foundation (1
97 HAFTARAH FOR VA-YAK-HEL (ASHKENAZIM)—PEKUDEI (SEPHARDIM)
Kings 5:22-23; 32), he utilized the skill of another (the coppersmith) for the design and casting of
various features of the Temple. This was practical politics: one Hiram had the resources; the other,
the skill—and Solomon had the "wisdom" to utilize foreign achievements in the crude and fine arts
(porterage and masonry; metalwork and design) for his own religious purposes. The point is all
the more striking when we note that Hiram the coppersmith was "endowed with skill, ability, and
talent" for the execution of his work (7:14). While exceptional, his endowment is presented here
solely in natural terms. It is thus in marked contrast to the talents ofBezalel, the master artisan of
the Tabernacle, who was "singled out" by the Lord and "endowed . . . with a divine spirit of skill,
ability, and knowledge in every kind of craft" (Exod. 35:30-31).
One may further observe that the Tyrian's role is delimited. Notably, the depiction of his
services shows that Hiram did his work "for King Solomon on the House of the L O R D " (1 Kings
7:40b) and that he worked in copper and burnished bronze (v. 45; cf. 7:14); whereas Solomon
himself (endowed with divine wisdom) made all the furnishings "in the House of the L O R D , "
and these were made of gold (7:48-50). The comparison between Hiram, the (skilled) Tyrian
craftsman, who works in bronze for objects found outside the most sacred area, and Solomon,
the (inspired) Judean who works in gold on objects having more sacred or special status, is
not incidental. One may even assume that it reflects a deliberate concern to indicate the higher
gradation of objects handled by the king. Moreover, just as in the Tabernacle degrees of sanctity
are correlated with the value of metals used, so is the case within the Temple. In both settings,
the furniture and objects of the outer court were bronzed, while those in the inner holy space
were plated with "pure" or refined gold. In the Tabernacle, the Ark in the Holy of Holies was
gold-plated inside and out, while the Ark cover (kaporet) was a solid slab of pure gold. 3 Cor-
respondingly (according to an earlier report), King Solomon overlaid "the entire House" and
its "floor" with gold—including "the entire altar of the Shrine," "the cherubim," and even the
cherubim, palms, and calyxes on the walls of the House and on the double doors of the entrance
o f t h e Shrine and Great Hall (1 Kings 6:21-22, 28-29, 30, 32, 35).
The summary of Solomon's work as presented in the haftarah is thus not the whole story.
The full picture evokes a structure of spectacular opulence: a home for God on earth. N o wonder
pilgrims rejoiced at the thought of ascending to the Temple in Jerusalem (Ps. 122:1) and the
pious yearned for its glories and spiritual benefits. One psalmist boldly articulated this desire
and the meaning of the Temple in his religious life: "One thing I ask of the LORD, only that do
I seek: to live in the House of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the
LORD, [and] to frequent His Temple" (Ps. 27:4).
COMMENTS
1 Kings 7:40. Himm The son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, whose father was a
lyrian coppersmith (v. 14). He is called Huram in 2 Chron. 2:12; according to 2 Chron. 2:13,
he was "the son of a Danite woman, his father a lyrian."
Rabbinic tradition preferred the genealogy in Chronicles, thereby establishing a typology
between the artisans of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Just as Bezalel, from the tribe o f j u d a h ,
and his assistant Ohaliab, from the tribe of Dan (Exod. 31:2, 6), were the chief craftsmen in
the construction of the Tabernacle, Solomon the Judean and Hiram the Danite are correspond-
ingly responsible for the artwork of the Temple. According to the Midrash, the "two tribes were
partners" in both affairs (Pesikta Rabbati 6). 4
44. the... tank Hebrew literally, "the sea." This was an enormous drum, ten
cubits in diameter (about eighteen feet) and five cubits deep (about nine feet). There were also ten
smaller lavers (v. 43), each called kiyor. A large laver for priestly washing was also constructed for
the Tabernacle, but called a kiyor (Exod. 30:18; 35:16). The termjya-m (sea) would thus seem to
have symbolic significance—of an earthly and even cosmological sort. This possibility is reinforced
by the attendant imagery. The large tank was supported by twelve brazen oxen, three facing each of
the cardinal points (w. 23-26). Moreover, the separate lavers had insets engraved with images of
lions, oxen, and cherubim (w. 28-29) and were set upon the likes of"chariot wheels" (v. 33).
48. the altar, ofyold Hebrew mizbah ha-zahav; literally, "the altar of gold" (or: golden
altar). This is the altar of incense, which was gilded. The bound (construct) form of this expres-
sion ("the altar of gold") differs from the inventory style found in the remainder of verses 48-50,
whereby each of the objects is mentioned and followed by the comment that it was made "of
gold."
1 Kings 7:40-50 is the haftarah reading for thepamshah ofVa-yak-hel according to the Ashkenazi
rite and is recited for Pekudei among the Sephardim. Va-yak-hel (Exod. 35:1-38:20) details the
blueprint for the Tabernacle erected in the wilderness. In it, the gradations of spatial sanctity are
marked by the gradations of metals and woods used in the different zones of the shrine. 8 The
Torah portion of Pekudei begins with the accounts of the metals and threads, describes the priestly
vestments, and concludes with the erection of the Tabernacle and the divine advent into it.
The language of the building of the Temple (found in the haftarah) echoes that of the build-
ing of the Tabernacle (detailed in the pamshah). The Tabernacle was built by Bezalel, who was
"singled out" by God and "endowed" with "a divine spirit of skill [hokhmah], ability [tevunah],
and knowledge [da'at] in every kind of craft [u-ve-khol mela'khah]" (Exod. 35:30-31). Likewise,
the bronze work of the Temple was done by Hiram, who "was endowed with skill [hokhmah],
ability [tevunah], and knowledge [da'at]9 for executing all work [kol mela'khah] in bronze" (1
Kings 7:14).
There are other linguistic links between the haftarah and the Torah portions of Va-yak-hel and
Pekudei. For example, the verb va-ya'as (he made) is used in connection with Bezalel's work on
the Tabernacle objects and also in connection with Hiram's and Solomon's work on the Temple.
The term hearkens back to its repeated use in the creation account in Genesis (1:7, 16, 25). A
typological link between the Creation, the Tabernacle, and the Temple is thus suggested. This
correlation is reinforced by key words. Thus the Tabernacle report concludes with the comment
that "Moses had finished [va-yekhal] the work [}etha-mela'khah]" (Exod. 40:33), and the Tem-
ple description notes that "Hiram finished [va-yekhal la-'asot] all the work [}et kol ha-mela'khah]
See what Bezalel did, whom the Holy One granted wisdom; as (Scripture) says: "And I shall
endow ['amftlki*] him with a divine spirit of skill [ihokhmah], ability [tevunah], and knowledge
[da'at]" (Exod. 31:3). With these three things the Holy One created His world; as [Scripture]
says: "The Lord founded the earth by wisdom [hokhmah]:, He established the heavens by under-
standing \tevunah\, [and] by His knowledge [da'at] the depths burst apart" (Prov. 3:19-20). And
by these three Bezalel made the Tabernacle. In a similar way, the Temple was built by these three
[things]; as [Scripture] says: "[Hiram] . . . was endowed with skill [ihokhmah], ability \tevunah~],
and knowledge [da'at]" (1 Kings 7:14). And so too will the future Temple be built with these
three; as [Scripture] says: [The] House will be built by wisdom [hokhmah], and established by
understanding [tevunah\, and by knowledge [da'at] will its rooms be filled [yimmale'u ] with all
precious and beautiful things" (Prov. 24:3-4). 1 1 (Tanhuma Va-yak-hel 5)
For the haftarah for Va-yak-hel for Ashkenazim, see previous haftarah.
For the haftarah for Va-yak-hel—Pekudei for Sephardim, see previous haftarah.
For an overview of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall content, theology, and
historiography, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from the Book
of Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
COMMENTS
1 Kings 7:13-14. Hiram... was the son of a widow ofthe tribe ofNaphtali, and hisfather
had been a Tyrian In 2 Chron. 2:13, this same individual (called Huram in 2 Chron. 2:12) is
the "son of a Danite woman, his father a Tyrian." Rabbinic tradition preferred the second gene-
alogy, thereby establishing a typology between the Tabernacle and the Temple. lust as Bezalel,
from the tribe of the ludah, and his assistant Ohaliab, from the tribe of Dan (Exod. 31:2, 6),
were the chief craftsmen in the construction of the Tabernacle, Solomon the ludean and Hiram
the Danite were correspondingly responsible for the artwork of the Temple. According to the
Midrash, the "two tribes were partners" in both affairs (Pesikta Rabbati 6). 4
14. bronze Hebrew nehoshet means both copper and bronze. In the translation "copper"
is ordinarily used to denote the natural product and "bronze" for the artifacts [Transl.].
20. thesecond capital That is, each of the two capitals [Transl.].
21.Jachin [and] Boaz The names of the two monumental pillars, set up to the right and
left of the portico. Their exact nature is uncertain, due to uncertainties about the meaning of the
terms and the various formulations found in the Bible and ancient translations. Nevertheless, it is
certain that freestanding columns were part of ancient Temple architecture. Cultic objects of clay
have been unearthed from the Israelite (Middle) Bronze period (tenth to ninth century B.C.E.),
with pillars represented outside the portal; and fragments of pillars have been found outside the
Temple to Nabu in ancient Dur Shrukhin (built by Sargon, end of the eighth century B.C.E.).
Both Herodotus and Strabo report double pillars dedicated to Heracles, and Lucian testifies to
two giant columns outside the shrine of a Syrian goddess (De Dea Syria, xvi, xvii).
The significance of the names lachin and Boaz in ancient ludea is unknown. Midrashic exposi-
tors, in attempting to portray the Temple as a microcosm of the world, give the names symbolic
significance. Midrash Tadshe (2) suggests that lachin {yakhin, "he establishes") stands for the
101 HAFTARAH FOR VA-YAK-HEL (SEPHARDIM)
moon, since the moon establishes (mekhin) the festival oflsrael; 5 "and Boaz (bo'az) corresponds
to the sun, which comes out in power and in strength ( ^ t e ) . " 6 Other attempts to correlate the
Temple objects to the human body (as microcosm) connect the pillars to the eyes of the head;
for "just as eyes are placed high in the head, so were these pillars high and thick." 7
23. the tank Hebrew literally, "the sea." This was an enormous drum, ten cubits
in diameter (about eighteen feet) and five cubits deep (about nine feet). The object was supported
by twelve brazen oxen. For the symbolism, see "Content and Meaning," above.
The Rabbis found connections between the Creation (divine wisdom), the Tabernacle (Bezalel's
wisdom), Solomon's Temple (Hiram's wisdom), and the new Temple to be built in the end of
days (Tanhuma Va-yak-hel 5). 8 Midrashic tradition further connects the laver of the Tabernacle
described in the pa-mshah with the gathered waters of Creation (Tanhuma Pekudei 2). 9 This
laver (Exod. 38:8, in xhepa-msha-h) corresponds to the giant tank ("sea") in the Temple, set upon
twelve oxen (1 Kings 7:23-26, in the haftarah). In an extended exegesis, the Midrash Tadshe
(2) relates the solid "sea" to the world itself and correlates its dimensions to various rabbinic
accounts about the size of the void or the distance between the earth and the firmament.10 In
a further comment, the twelve oxen are deemed to symbolize "the twelve constellations [of the
zodiac] by which the earth is governed." 11
ASHKENAZIM IKINGS7:51-8:21
ASHKENAZIM IKINGS7:51-8:21
For the haftarah for Pekudei (Sephardim) and for Va-yak-hel—Pekudei (Sephardim),
see earlier, Haftarah for Va-yak-hel (Ashkenazim).
For a discussion of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its contents, theology, and historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from the Book of
Kings (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah marks a pivotal event in the history of ancient Israel: the completion of the
Temple and the transfer to it of the ancient Tent of Meeting. Solomon announces before the
gathered throng that this event also fulfills the promise made to his father David, for the Lord
had confirmed David's intention to build a House for God's name, but deferred that plan to
a future descendant (2 Sam. 7:12-13). Solomon declares himself that legitimate heir. At his
instigation, the Temple was built and the Ark (with the ancient tablets of the covenant) brought
to permanent rest in its precincts. Jerusalem thus becomes the sacred center of the nation. The
haftarah describes these events in successive stages:
The haftarah describes a major transformation of sacred life in ancient Israel. Solomon begins by
transferring to the Shrine the sacred donations of his father David and then proceeds to transfer
the Ark, the Tent of Meeting, and the sacred vessels from the City of David to the Temple. With
this event, the period of the wilderness wandering—symbolized by the movable Tabernacle—is
brought to a close.1 The transitional phase inaugurated by David is also concluded, since in his day
the Ark also rested in various locales, including the City of David (Zion). It is now transferred to
its permanent home in the Temple of lerusalem. Near the end of the ceremony, Solomon presents
himself as the very son predicted, in 2 Sam. 7:12-13, to realize David's plan. Accordingly, the
transfer of the sacred objects to a new site and the proclamation of the king's divine right bring
all events to their true finale. God's word to David is fulfilled.
Two events stand behind Solomon's ceremony and give it added authority. The first is the
processional itself. One can hardly miss in the account of the Ark's transfer from Zion an echo
of David's participation in the events that first brought the Ark to the City of David (2 Sam. 6:
12-19). The other takes us back to the construction of the Ark in Moses' day. According to the
report in xhepa-mshah, at the end of the great labor "the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and
the Presence of the L O R D filled the Tabernacle" (Exod. 40:34). By this event it was clear that
the Lord accepted the work of human hands as a fit place for His dwelling. Our haftarah alludes
to this occurance in the announcement that after the Ark was deposited in the Holy of Holies,
"the cloud had filled the House of the L O R D . . . for the Presence of the L O R D filled the House of
the L O R D " (1 Kings 8:10-11). The point of this typology is clear: King Solomon is the Moses
of the monarchy. To underscore matters, the historian notes that Solomon's Shrine housed "the
two tablets of stone" that were hewn by Moses on Sinai (v. 9).
The indwelling of the divine Presence or Glory (kavod) in the Shrine is a distinctive feature
of priestly theology.2 It manifests the numinous force of God in concrete and visible terms. For
example, at the conclusion of the initiation of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, the kavod
appeared before the entire congregation (Lev. 9:23), and it is just this divine reality that will return
to the Shrine with the rebuilding of the new Temple (Ezek. 10:18-22; 43:2-4). In other accounts,
the kavod also appears with an anthropomorphic shape. Thus, when Moses at Sinai asks God to
reveal His kavod, he receives a glimpse of a receding figure that passes by and casts a hand over
him—in order that he not see the divine face and die (Exod. 33:18-23). 3 Similarly, in his inaugural
vision, Ezekiel himself discerns a "semblance of a human form" that "was the appearance of the
semblance of the kavod of the L O R D " (Ezek. 1:26, 28). 4 Accordingly, the descent of the kavod into
the Tabernacle and the Temple conveys the visual reality of the divine Presence. Solomon's words of
prayer at this moment are thus a fitting sequel to the manifestation: "I have now built for You . . .
a place where You may dwell [makhon le-shivtekha] forever" (1 Kings 8:10-11, 13).
COMMENTS
1 Kings 7:51. the sacred donations of hisfather David Rabbinic tradition was not content
with the plain sense of this passage, which notes the enrichment of the Temple treasuries through
David's donations. The purpose of several interpretations was therefore to highlight Solomon's
ethical integrity in refusing to use David's wealth in the building of his Temple. According to one
midrash (cited by Rashi), Solomon opined that David should have used this money to buy food for
the hungry during the famine in his day (cf. 2 Samuel 24) —and since he did not, his money was
tainted. Another opinion (advanced by Ralbag) stressed that since David's gain was ill-gotten, Solo-
mon deferred his building project (for four years) until he could finance the work on his own.
These denigrations of David continue a line of criticism whose origin is in Scripture itself.
According to 1 Chron. 22:8 and 28:3, the monarch was prohibited by God to build the Temple
because "you have shed much blood and fought great battles." This rebuke is remarkable. It
echoes the prophetic passion of Isaiah, who said that God will not accept the prayers of those
whose "hands are stained by blood" (Isa. 1:15); 7 and of the psalmist, who stressed that only
persons with "clean hands" may ascend to the Temple and "carry away a blessing from the L O R D "
(Ps. 24:4-5). 8
1 Kings 8:2. Feast The Feast of Booths (Sukkot). Compare Lev. 23:34. 1 Kings 8:2-21
is recited as the haftarah for the second day of Sukkot.
Ethanim Here identified with the seventh month, later called Tishrei.
4. Tentof.Meeting The term used in theparashah for the Tabernacle.
9. There was nothing inside theArk Only "two tablets of stone ['avanim]." This follows
the tradition in Deut. 10:1-5. According to the language of Exod. 25:16 and 40:20, Moses put the
"Pact" ('edut) in the Ark (Exod. 34:29 refers to the "two tablets of the 'edut"). According to the
Deuteronomic tradition, Moses himself made an Ark for the tablets. This point was acknowledged
by rabbinic tradition, which differentiated the (temporary, wooden) Ark made by Moses from
the (permanent, overlaid) one made by Bezalel according to a divine model (Tanhuma 'Ekev 10,
followed by Rashi). 9 Other Sages suggested that both the first (broken) and second tablets were
in the Ark (B. Baba Batra 14a). Medieval scholars deduced that this referred only to Bezalel's Ark
in the Temple of Solomon, whereas prior to that the broken tablets were in Moses'Ark (see B.
Eruvin 63b, Tosafot). 10 Talmudic tradition reports that the Ark (and its contents) was "hidden
away" in the time o f K i n g Josiah (B. Yoma 52b). 11
In the ancient Near East, treaty texts were regularly deposited at the feet of the gods, in
the shrine, 12 and this is the custom that stands behind the deposit of the tablets of 'edut (Exod.
25:16) or berit (Deut. 9:11, 15) in the Ark of the Tabernacle and Temple. According to Deut.
12. then Solomon declared Hebrew }az (then) is a temporal adverb and can mean "when"
or after certain things were done—as in 7:51. The translation "then" makes Solomon's declaration
responsive to the divine descent; that is, when God had shown His favor, then Solomon spoke.
This interpretation follows the Targum, Rashi, and Kimhi.
18.the LORD said to... David Through the prophet Nathan (2 Sam. 7:8-17). The
matter of David's intention does not quote directly from 2 Samuel 7; however, the key issue of
a son who would build the Shrine draws explicitly from 2 Sam. 7:12b-13a.
The haftarah underscores a typology between the ancient Tabernacle and the First Temple. The
former was built by Moses and served as the movable pavilion of service during the time of the
desert wandering and through the initial phase of settlement. The latter was built by Solomon
with all the grandeur of oriental opulence and was designed as a place where God "may dwell
forever" (1 Kings 8:13). The transfer into the Temple of the Ark of the Tabernacle was meant
as a public sign of continuity—and certainly as a proclamation that the unstable settlement
was completed and the Ark could also rest from its service at the vanguard of the armies of
God. The typology between the events is also marked by the language chosen to indicate the
end of the two labors. Regarding Moses we read that he "finished the work" (va-yekhal... }et
ha-mela'khah [Exod. 40:33]) —an allusion to God's own rest from labor in Gen. 2:2 and a
theological suggestion that the Tabernacle completed the work of creation. 13 Parallel to this
statement, the historian says of Solomon's efforts that "the work . . . was completed" (va-tish-
lam . . . ha-mela'khah [1 Kings 7:51]) —a clear play on his name (Shelomo) and an allusion to
the fact that in his day there was "peace" (shalom) in the region so that the House of God could
be built (1 Kings 5:4).
The ancient writers also wanted to suggest another common feature between the two Shrines.
At the completion of the Tabernacle, Moses put the 'edut into the Ark, set the staves for its
portage, and brought the Ark into the Shrine (Exod. 4 0 : 2 0 - 2 1 ) . This done, "the cloud covered
the Tent of Meeting, and the Presence of the L O R D filled the Tabernacle. Moses could not enter
the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud had settled upon it and the Presence of the L O R D filled
the Tabernacle" (Exod. 4 0 : 3 4 - 3 5 ) . Similarly, after Solomon had completed the work, he had
the Ark with the stone tablets carried into the Holy of Holies upon its poles ( 1 Kings 8 : 3 - 4 ,
6-9); thereupon, "the priests came out of the sanctuary— for the cloud had filled the House of
the L O R D and the priests were not able to remain and perform the service because of the cloud,
for the Presence of the L O R D filled the House of the L O R D " ( W . 1 0 - 1 1 ) . The precise parallelism
implies that the Temple was accepted by God in exactly the same manner as the Tabernacle in
the days of Moses. But whereas the ancient pavilion led the people in their passages through
time—with God's accompaniment (Exod. 4 0 : 3 7 - 3 8 ) , the great House in lerusalem now marks
the people's settlement in space—and the desire for God's earthly indwelling forever (1 Kings
8:12-13).
The difference between a movable and permanent Shrine evokes different spiritual reali-
ties—the one of dynamic and changing circumstances, in accordance with the symbolism of
religious life as a journey; the other of static and dependable stability, in accordance with the
symbolism of religiosity directed toward a sacred center. The incorporation of the ancient Tent
(of Moses) within the Temple of Solomon symbolically joins these two realities in the mind of
the reader. The protrusion of the staves keeps the image of movement alive.
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH43:21-44:23
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 43:21-44:23
For a discussion of the prophecies in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their historical setting
and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview of Biblical
Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks introducing the several haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
This haftarah is a prophecy of hope addressed to the Judeans in the Babylonian exile, sometime
after Cyrus the Mede issued an edict allowing foreign subjects to revive their religious heritage
and return to their homeland (538 B.C.E.).1 Many of the people hesitated and were repeatedly
exhorted to trust in God's saving power (see Isaiah 40-48). Isaiah 43:21-44:23 reflects this
situation. It opens with a call by God to the people, proclaiming that they shall declare His praise
(Isa. 43:21). Following that prophecy, past sins are recalled and a new future anticipated. The
people are told that they need not fear the outcome, for this promise is the word of the supreme
God—"the first and . . . the last" (44:6), whose word may be trusted. He will pour His spirit
upon their descendants, "and they shall sprout like the grass, like willows by watercourses" (44:
3-4). By contrast, idolatry is presented as a vain pursuit, and idolators as people deluded by
images that cannot save them. Israel should therefore "remember" these things and not "forget"
the Lord—their creator and redeemer (44:21).
The haftarah is composed of four parts, marking successive stages of instruction.
The haftarah is marked by promises of hope. This is evident from the opening line, in which God
announces that Israel has been created to declare His praise. In fact, the promise in this verse
shows how the Rabbis took over biblical prophecies and recast them. In its original setting, Isa.
43:21 (the opening line) is the conclusion to an independent word of promise (43:16-21). In it,
the Lord describes how He will do "something new" (v. 19) for Israel—nurturing and restoring
His chosen people, "The people I formed for Myself that they might declare My praise \tehillati
yesa-pperu]" (v. 21; NJPS). On this reading, God's new act of sustenance will result in the nation's
proclamation of glory. But in our haftarah the verse has a different sense. As the initial line of
the reading, this phrase now serves as an unconditional proclamation: "The people I formed for
Myself shall declare my praise!" In this new format, the declaration provides a unilateral promise
whose theme anticipates the conclusion of the haftarah: "For the L O R D has redeemed Jacob,
has glorified Himself through Israel" (44:23). Thus, the entire recitation is framed by a tone of
triumph, promise, and realization—a biblical word o f h o p e reshaped by rabbinic tradition.
Set within a framework of praise and glory, the haftarah contrasts past and future time. Both
underscore the theme of divine forgiveness. At the outset, speaking to the nation in exile, the
prophet rebukes the people's failure to worship the Lord (in the past). This charge is presented
as the reason for the nation's calamity, and God asks the people to correct Him if the allegation
is false. "It is I, I who—for My own sake—wipe your transgressions away \moheh pesha'ekha]
and remember your sins no more. . . . Tell your version, that you may be vindicated" (Isa. 43:
25-26). N o correction follows, and the people stand guilty as charged. However, as the proph-
ecy develops, divine accusation is replaced by words of reconciliation and hope (in the future).
A final exhortation calls upon Israel to "remember" her intimate bond with God (44:21) and
adds: "I wipe away your transgressions like a cloud \mahiti ke-'avpesha'ekha\, and your sins like
mist—come back to Me, for I redeem you" (44:22). 2 This language recalls the earlier statement
of divine forgiveness and reinforces the reality of that fact (43:25). Formulated as a deed virtu-
ally complete, God's assertion provides a prelude to the nation's return to Him—both spiritually
and physically.
The haftarah thus shifts thematically from judgment to salvation. The opening rebuke assails
the people for their religious failures, for not having worshiped the Lord (43:22) or sacrificed
properly (w. 23-24). The language is blunt and concrete: the people are charged with having
become weary (yaga'ta) of God and withdrawing their sacrificial service. Correspondingly, the
Lord became wearied (hoga'tani) and burdened (he'evadtani) by the people's sins, though He
never wearied (hoga'tikha•) them or burdened (he'evadtikha) them with sacrifices. This rhetorical
play drives home the point of Israel's perfidy and its effect upon God. Some commentators have
sought the setting for this cultic rebuke in the Babylonian exile (Ibn Ezra), but this is unlikely
since sacrifices were not offered there (Abravanel). On the other hand, it is not certain whether
the prophet's arraignment refers to a specific period of faithlessness during the monarchy (Rashi) 3
or is rather a more comprehensive criticism of the nation's infidelity.
Reference is also made to the sins of "your earliest ancestor" and "your spokesmen" (Isa. 43:
27). But the meaning of these terms and the time referred to are ambiguous (see Comments).
On the other hand, the effect of these transgressions is clear: they led to God's abandonment of
His people and to the profanation of "the holy princes" (v. 28). As noted, there is no defense;
the divine judgment remains unqualified.
The turnabout comes with dramatic force. Immediately after the condemnation in Isa. 43:
22-28, a new word announces God's grace. Echoing the opening promise, in which Israel is
called "the people I formed for Myself \ya-tza-rti /z]" (43:21), Israel is now called the chosen na-
COMMENTS
Isaiah43:21. The peoplelformedfor Myself "Formed": Hebrewyatzarti. This verb recurs
thematically throughout the haftarah, underscoring true and false creations. See also Isa. 44:2,
19, and 21 and the pun in 44:12. The motif of God as the creator and former oflsrael is also
found in Isa. 43:1, 7; 44:24; and 45:11. It highlights a sense of divine destiny and rebirth.
Shall declare My praise As the opening proclamation of the haftarah, the phrase is
best understood as a declarative promise. The declaration is in fact a telling {yesappem) of God's
mighty deeds. Compare Exod. 10:1-2; Ps. 78:3; and 145:6. (In its original setting in the Book
of Isaiah, this modal form of the verb is often rendered as "That they might declare . . ." See the
discussion in Context and Meaning.)
Theparashah details the forms of public sacrifice whereby one may sustain and renew a relation-
ship with God. Among these are the whole burnt offering ('olah), the sacrifice (zevah) of well-
HAFTARAH FOR VA-YAK-HEL 110
being, the meal offering (minhah), and the spice of frankincense (levonah). In the haftarah, the
prophet decries the abandonment of these offerings and the practice of sin and iniquity (Isa. 43:
22-24). Punning on the verb 'nvad, which commonly means to perform cultic service, God says
that He did not "burden" (he'evadtikha) Israel with demands for meal offerings, but they have
"burdened" (he'evadtani) Him with their transgressions. The perversity oflsrael is thus marked
by their inversion of proper worship.
Another link between the pa-mshah and haftarah highlights the importance of witnesses in
social and theological matters. According to the rule in Lev. 5:1, a person who hears a public
imprecation and can serve as a "witness" ('ed) to the event incurs guilt if he fails to provide testi-
mony in cases of punishable crimes. By contrast, Isa. 44:6-8 speaks of Israel's role as "witnesses"
('eday) to God's incomparable ability to forecast the future and fulfill His prophetic word. This
places human experience at the center of theological claims, for without human testimony the
reality of God and the wonder of His ways would have no social significance. Rabbinic tradition
understood this paradox and produces a remarkable transformation of Isaiah's words. According
to Scripture, God's statement is self-aggrandizing and exultant: "You [Israel] are My witnesses.
Is there any god . . . but Me?" (v. 8). The Midrash sets the record straight; there may be no god
but God, but He needs the testimony of humankind to be known: "If 'you are My witnesses,'
then 'I am God' (43:12); but if you are not My witnesses, then, if one may say so, I am not God"
(Sifre Deuteronomy 346). 8 This striking statement presents theology as a type of testimony to
religious experience. Integrity is as vital here as in the legal sphere, where honest testimony is
crucial for a social realm to be established and sustained.
For Jeremiah's life and times and a consideration of his prophetic message and theology, see
"The Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the comments introducing the several haftarah readings derived from Jeremiah's prophecies
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is one of several rebukes that follow Jeremiah's Temple sermon (Jer. 7:1-20),
in which the prophet proclaims God's judgment against the Temple and nation (w. 14-15, 20)
for the people's sins ( W . 8-10, 18). That speech has been dated to 609 B.C.E. on the basis of Jer.
26:1-3, where a historical superscription precedes its recapitulation of 7:1-20. The proclama-
tions that constitute the haftarah (7:21-8:3) have been appended to this sermon, 1 probably due
to thematic similarity (charges of immoral behavior and cultic abominations). This editorial
arrangement, however, is no proof of the original occasion(s) of these speeches.
The conclusion to the haftarah (Jer. 9:22-23) skips forward in order to end with a positive
religious instruction—though not the customary promise of national renewal. The Babylonian
Talmud refers to this haftarah as one without the ordinarily requisite twenty-one verses,2 and
adds that the reason for this is because "the topic is concluded" (B. Megillah 23b).
The topic of proper action dominates the haftarah. This is stressed through rhetorical forms of
negation and contrast. Thus, in the opening critique of the nation, God first says, "I did not
speak [lo} dibbnrti] with them or command them [ve-lo' tzivitim]" concerning sacrifices and con-
trasts this with the positive assertion about "what [ha-davar] I commanded [tziviti] them" to
do (ler. 7:22-23). The juxtaposition is between unbidden offerings and the command to follow
the divine way. Similarly, at a later point, God maligns the heinous acts of child sacrifice being
performed and emphasizes that "I never commanded" (lo} tziviti) such behavior (7:31). A final
example of this structure occurs at the end of the haftarah. True to form, the rhetoric juxtaposes
worthless assertions of self-glorification ('al yithallel) with their positive counterpart (yithallel)
andvalues (9:22-23).
To establish these contrasts, the rhetorical phrase ki 'im, "but," recurs in all three parts of
the haftarah (ler. 7:22, 32; 9:23). In the first and third cases, these words link the positive and
negative instructions and mark the difference between them. In the second instance, the phrase
actually intensifies the doomsaying ("men shall no longer speak of Topheth . . . but [ki 'im] of
the Valley of Slaughter" [7:32]) and the prophetic results to come.
By emphasizing the people's false or unbidden acts of worship, leremiah assumes his place
in the chain of prophets sent by God "daily and persistently" (yow hashkem ve-shaloah. [ler. 7:
25]) to heed His voice. In using this argument, found elsewhere in the Book of leremiah (cf. 7:
13; 11:7) and in historical assessments attributed to the Deuteronomic school (2 Kings 17:13),
emphasis is placed on God's concern that the people repent of their ways and avoid punishment.
By his activity, the prophet thus functions as one who forewarns the people of the consequences
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM112
of their behavior (cf. Jer. 7:23; 2 Kings 17:13) —a feature that becomes prominent in late bibli-
cal sources and subsequent Jewish law.3 Mocking the nation's resistance, the prophet punningly
juxtaposes the path that "I [God] enjoin" a-tzavveh [Jer. 7:23]) with the self-centered "counsels"
(mo'a-tzot [v. 24]) of the people. Through their behavior, the people "have gone backward" (v.
24) and "acted worse than their fathers" (v. 26).
Counterposed to the divine way is the cultic activity condemned in Jer. 7:21-22 ("Add your
burnt offerings \_'oloteik^em\ to your other sacrifices \zivheikhem\ and eat the meat! For when I
freed your fathers from the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning
burnt offerings or sacrifice"). Framed as a parody of priestly instructions, this prophetic word goes
beyond the rejection of sacrifices found in Jer. 6:19-20. In that case, Jeremiah asserts that because
the nation has rejected the Torah, their burnt offerings ('olot) and general sacrifices (zevahim) are
displeasing. Such a critique follows the usual pattern in which sacrifices are rebuffed because of
sinful practices or attitudes (see Isa. 1:10-17). What is striking about the present case, is that
the people are derisively told to perform the 'olot together with the zevahim offering—and even
to eat the meat thereof. Such a command blatantly contradicts the law in the Torah, which states
explicitly that the 'olot are to be entirely consumed upon the altar (Lev. 1:1-9). For that reason,
it is best to follow those commentators who regard Jeremiah's words as an ironic "instruction."
In that case it would parody the formal priestly teachings 4 and imply that the people may as well
desecrate the 'olah offering—since such a sacrifice was not given during the desert sojourn when
God revealed His will to the people.
This last point has evoked the perplexity of generations of interpreters, since Lev. 7:37-38 (at
the end of Tzav) states explicitly that the cultic instructions were given during the Sinai sojourn
(Lev. 26:46 even asserts that they were given at Mount Sinai itself). At first sight it seems that
Jeremiah's remark comports with Amos's demotion of the significance of sacrifices, when he
says that the Israelites did not offer God meat offerings in the desert (Amos 5:25). But Amos's
remark says nothing about the origin of the sacrificial laws or that God did not command them.
Rabbi Akiba tried to resolve the difficulty by suggesting that although the people as a whole did
not sacrifice in the desert (because of their apostasy with the Golden Calf), the Levites remained
faithful and continued to offer sacrifices (B. Hagigah 6b).
However, this solution does not account for the divine statement in Jer. 7:22-23, which states
that at the Exodus the people were only commanded to heed God's voice—not sacrifices. Ibn
Ezra therefore rejected Rabbi Akiba's position and argued that the plain sense of the passages in
Amos and Jeremiah was rather that the Israelites did not offer sacrifices in the desert, but were
only commanded to do justice.5 Rashi offered a more drastic harmonization of the difficulty,
suggesting that the law in Leviticus only enunciates the conditions for the voluntary performance
of the 'olah and zevah offerings and does not refer to their obligatory character (i. e., the Torah
only says "if" or "when" a person offers such sacrifices; it does not say that one must do so). 6
In the light of Jeremiah's explicit statement that sacrifices were not divinely commanded in the
desert, Ibn Ezra's suggestion has merit and points toward the solution made forcefully by Rabbi
David Kimhi. 7 According to him, God's statement refers to the revelation of the Decalogue. Only
this was commanded at Sinai, in order to teach the nation that the unconditional obligations of
morality are the cornerstone of the covenant (cf. Abravanel). In this sense, Jeremiah's words are
historically accurate and reinforce a central covenantal point. Moreover, Kimhi's understand-
ing of the passage also contributes to an appreciation of Jeremiah's ironic injunction that the
people eat the 'olah along with the zevah offering. In light of the centrality of the Decalogue,
the prophet's point is that voluntary (individual) sacrifices performed along with acts of divine
disobedience are as good as worthless. 8 In fact, he suggests, they are no more efficacious than if
they were entirely misperformed.
Jeremiah's concern for the primacy of morality recalls the earlier emphasis of Hosea, who
stated for God that "I desire [hafetz] goodness, not sacrifice \zevah\, obedience to God, rather
than burnt offerings ['olot]" (Hos. 6:6). This emphasis that God "desires" personal piety over
sacrifices is repeated in various supplications in the Book of Psalms (see Pss. 40:9 and 51:18).
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 7:21-28. This sermon is replete with phrases found elsewhere in Jeremiah's
rhetoric. Compare the content and style of 7:22-25 with 11:3-4, 7-8; and 13:10. Reflexes of
this language and theology also occur in historiographical surveys based upon this tradition (see
Jer. 25:4 and 2 Kings 17:13-15). Other phrases echo the language of the Deuteronomic school
tradition; compare, for example, the language of disloyalty in Jer. 7:24 and 30 with Deut. 29:
18 and Deut. 4:25; 9:18; Judg. 2:11; 3:7, respectively. These similarities (among many oth-
ers) suggest the great impact of the Deuteronomic tradition upon Jeremiah himself and upon
the final formulation of his teachings. 9 (The final form of this speech is complex and may have
undergone expansions of various sorts. Thus Jer. 7:27 appears redundant with v. 26. It may have
been modeled on7:13. The verse is missing in the Septuagint.)
21.Add your burnt offerings "Add": Hebrew sefu, from the stem y-s-f. The form puns
on the stem s-f-h, "consume, destroy." Compare Kimhi, who stressed the optional character of
these sacrifices (see above). Compare R. loseph Kara on verse 22. 10
23. thatlmay be your God For the covenantal formulary, see Exod. 6:7; 19:5; Lev. 26:
12; and ler. 31:33.
24. their own counsels "Counsels" (mo'etzot) and "willfulness" are linked in Ps. 81:
13. But "counsels" is missing in the Septuagint, and many moderns have suggested that it is
extraneous here. 11
25. daily Hebrewjyow. An odd adverbial usage, presumably meaning "daily" (Targum;
Kimhi; Abravanel). Others delete it as a copyist error. 12
28. This is the nation This phrase functions as a summary appraisal of sins at the end
of prophetic discourses. Compare ler. 13:25; also, Isa. 14:26 and 17:14. These summations are
introduced by zeh or zo't ("this is").
29-34. This section is a lament for, and judgment against, apostasy. Two crimes are named:
setting abominations in the Temple and sacrificing children. Both are mentioned in connection
with Manasseh (2 Kings 21:4-7). Court-sponsored child sacrifice goes back to Ahaz (2 Kings
16:3), but more popular expressions are recorded (Mic. 6:6-7). ler. 7:31 mentions burning, the
equivalent of "passing" a child through fire (cf. Deut. 18:10; 2 Kings 21:6; 23:10). Vocalization
of the term tophet is modeled on the noun boshet (shame). A variant form is found in Isa. 30:33,
where also the dedication is to a god called Melech ("king"; cf. 2 Kings 17:31, which refers to
Arameans who "burned their children [as offerings] to Adrammelech"). The form Molech (in
the prohibitions; e. g., Lev. 18:21) is thus also derisively modeled on boshet. A more dramatic
and expansive version ofleremiah's diatribe occurs at ler. 19:1-13.
29. For the LORD has spumed The language of this statement of doom ("For the L O R D
has spurned [ma'as] and cast off [va-yittosh] the brood that provoked His wrath ['evmtoY) is
similar to the language referring to God's rejection of the shrine of Shilo in Ps. 78:59. leremiah
also says that the people were worse than their "fathers" (J'a-votam [v. 26]). This point is also
made in Ps. 78:57.
32. men shall no longer speak The contrastive expression "shall no longer speak
o f . . . but o f " introduces a negative prophecy of doom. Elsewhere leremiah employs this
formula with a positive sense (e. g., ler. 3:16-17, regarding the renewal of lerusalem; 23:
7-8, regarding the return of the northern exiles to their homeland). Postexilic prophecies
were influenced by this form (Isa. 61:6; 62:4), which leremiah may have inherited from
Hosea (cf. Hos. 2:1).
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM114
33. The doom prophecy of dishonoring the dead by exposure recurs in Jer. 19:7 and 34:
20. The variant expression in 8:2 is also found in 9:21 and 25:33. Both forms are combined in
16:4. The punishment is linked to the curse for covenant infidelity in Deut. 28:26, which is in
turn related to penalties exacted by Assyrian overlords for violation of their treaties. 13 Reflexes
of these curses appear in oracles against royalty (1 Kings 21:20-23; 2 Kings 9:23) and against
foreign nations (Isa. 34:1-4; Ezek. 39:4-5, 17-21).
Exposure of the dead was considered a great dishonor and a severe form of desecration through-
out the ancient world. Recording his action against Susa, the capital of Elam, the Assyrian king
Ashurbanipal states that he "ravaged, tore down, and laid open to the sun" the tombs of the former
kings of that place. "Their bones I carried off" to Assyria, thus imposing restlessness upon their spirits,
depriving them of food offerings and libations."14 In ancient Judah, during the same period, Josiah
desecrated the tombs of the shrine ofBethel and exposed the bones (2 Kings 23:16).
Jeremiah 9:22. not.. .glory A condemnation of vaunted power and knowledge, such as
is also found in Isa. 5:21-22. Steadfast devotion is advocated; the Hebrew text speaks here of
haskelve-da'at, of divine knowledge through acts of justice. Medieval commentators saw here a
counsel to cultivate two types of reflective intelligence, in order to perceive God's physical and
metaphysical dominion (cf. Kimhi and Abravanel).
23. kindness,justice, and equity Hebrew hesed, mishpat, and tzeda-kah. The last two terms
constitute a semantic pair well known from Mesopotamian sources (kittu u mesham). They are
also commonly linked to acts of kindness (damiktu) and constitute the attributes of royalty.15
In the Bible, the semantic pair recurs as a human and divine ideal (e.g., Gen. 18:19). A triad of
elements for God (Pss. 33:5; 89:15) and man (Isa. 16:5) is also found. Jeremiah 9:23 shows
the link between these divine attributes and the covenant ideal. In fact, this triad is recited as
a core element of the covenant espousal in Hos. 2:21. Both texts link this covenantal precis to
knowledge of God.
For Maimonides, "kindness, justice, and equity" are the attributes of a person who acquires
apprehension of God and knows His providence over His creatures. A meditation on this subject
comprises the conclusion to his Guidefor the Perplexed (3:53-54).
Both thepamshah and haftarah refer to the 'olah (burnt offering) and zevah (sacrifice) of well-be-
ing— but do so in different instructional forms. Specifically, Lev. 1:3-17 + 6:1-6 and 3:1-17 +
7:11-18 provide prescriptive and descriptive accounts of the performance of the 'olah and zevah
offering, respectively, with variations pertaining to the type of livestock or fowl permitted. Ac-
cording to priestly law, the 'olah was wholly consumed upon the altar, while the zevah was shared
between the priests and the donor, and only certain fatty parts consumed on the altar. The fact that
the zevah was partly eaten by laypersons provides the basis for Jeremiah's satiric instruction that the
people eat the meat of their 'olah along with their zevah (Jer. 7:21). The prophet's sarcasm stems
from the fact that the people have ignored the central tenets of the covenant—hence offerings have
become virtually useless. Jeremiah stresses that God "did n o t . . . command" (tziwitim) the people
to perform sacrifices when they came out of Egypt (Jer. 7:22). By contrast, the priestly rule ends
with the specific emphasis that its regulations were "commanded" (tziwah) by God in the wilder-
ness of Sinai (Lev. 7:38). Jeremiah's rhetoric presumably serves to underscore the primacy of the
Decalogue in the covenant. For him, covenantal right is the precondition for ritual rite.
Jeremiah's emphasis was not lost on the Rabbis. After the destruction of the Second Temple
(70 c . E . ) , the prophet's statement that the Sinaitic covenant did not enjoin sacrifices would help
assuage fears that without the cult the people's relationship with God was permanently impaired.
Responding to such an anxiety, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai radically reinterpreted Judaism when
he taught that acts of loving-kindness would effect an atonement "just like" the ancient sacrifices
For the content and theology of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historio-
graphy, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from Samuel (listed in
"Index of Biblical Passages").
This haftarah attests to a new phase of ancient Israelite religion and culture. After David was
crowned king in Hebron (2 Sam. 5:1-5; ca. 1000 B.C.E.), he proceeded to conquer lerusalem
(w. 6-10) and defeat the Philistines (w. 17-25). Following these events, the king decided to
bring the Ark up to lerusalem from the home of Abinadab in Baalim, where it had been kept
after earlier wars against the Philistines in the time of Samuel (1 Sam. 6:21-7:1). The transfer of
this object to the ancient site of lebus (lerusalem) was presumably designed to unite the tribes
oflsrael and ludah (in the north and south) around a sacred center.1 This act thus marks the
innovation of religious centralization, in contrast to the earlier translocation of the Ark among
the tribes and shrines.
The ceremonious portage of the Ark to lerusalem (together with the unexpected disruption
of this process) constitutes the first part of the haftarah (2 Sam. 6:1-19). The king's desire to
build a permanent shrine for the Ark (together with a postponement of this request to a future
descendant) makes up the second part of the reading (2 Sam. 7:1-17). Among Sephardim, only
the first part is recited.
The haftarah oscillates between two poles: stasis and movement, with its principal focus on the
Ark of the Lord. At the outset, 2 Samuel 6 depicts the initial transfer of the Ark from Kiriath-
jearim, where it had apparently rested for nearly two generations. But the movement to Jerusalem
is postponed when Uzzah reaches out to stay the tottering Ark and is struck dead by God on
the spot. 3 As a precaution, the Ark is brought to the home of Obed-edom, where it remains for
three months until it is certain that divine wrath has passed. The transfer is then re-initiated,
and the Ark is brought to Jerusalem and " s e t . . . up in its place inside the tent which David had
pitched for it" (2 Sam. 6:17).
Subsequently, David desires a more permanent dwelling for the Ark. But God initially de-
flects this desire, noting that from the Exodus until now He had always "moved about" in a
portable shrine and never requested a stable "house" (2 Sam. 7:6). With these words, there is an
idealization of the ancient Tabernacle-Tent as the suitable site for God's earthly dwelling. Indeed,
movement is portrayed as the very core of the people's life with God—both on their journeys in
the desert and in the rotation of the Ark from shrine to shrine in the Promised Land. The desire
for a permanent Temple thus constitutes a radical break with ancient practice, exchanging older
nomadic ideals (the "Tent") for the opulence of a monarchy (the "House"). 4 Nevertheless, the
initial rejection is eventually compromised when God announces that a permanent dynasty should
have a permanent shrine. The haftarah thus begins with the Ark at rest in the home of Abinadab
and ends with the promise of its future rest in a royal Temple.
The dynamic of stasis and movement is also expressed on two other planes. The first is national
and spatial. God promises the king that He will provide the people a place in which they will be
planted firmly and dwell in security (2 Sam. 7:10-11). Wandering and fear will cease, and there
will be "rest" (NJPS: "safety" [v. 11]) from all enemies. The other plane on which the dynamic of
stasis and movement is played out is temporal and focuses on the royal dynasty of David. Once
again the issues of security and permanence are stressed, though now the focus is on the continuity
117 HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
of the Davidic line. God promises that a covenant will forever link Him with David's descendents
(2 Sam. 7:13). He will be to the king as a father, and the king will be like His son; nevermore will
divine favor be withdrawn from the family of David, as it was from Saul's heirs (2 Sam. 7:15). All
subsequent beliefs in the dynasty ofDavid and its restoration derive from this source.5
The movement toward cultural stability expressed in the haftarah (for the Ark and for the
dynasty) is endangered at two points. The first involves the holy Ark itself, when it was trans-
ported to Jerusalem. At that time, Uzzah's illegitimate contact with the sacred object led to his
immediate death by God. Subsequently, to safeguard against potential indiscretions, the Ark was
carried forward by "bearers" (2 Sam. 6:13). The identity of these individuals is not mentioned;
however, later biblical tradition believed that David corrected his earlier error of allowing laymen
to transport the Ark and reported that "David gave orders that none but the Levites were to carry
the Ark of God"— as was their duty according to the Law (1 Chron. 15:2). 6
The second source of danger lies with the dynasty. God offers a covenant of eternal commit-
ment to David and his descendants and declares: "I will establish his royal throne forever. I will
be a father to him, and he shall be a son to Me" (2 Sam. 7:13b-14a). But this bond does not
free the kings of responsibility. God's unilateral commitment includes a bilateral dimension. If a
king "does wrong, I [God] will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals"
(2 Sam. 7:14b). Thus there are duties the king owes his divine overlord—and he may expect
punishments for disobedience. Nevertheless, says God, "I will never withdraw My favor [hasdi]
from him" (2 Sam. 7:15a).
Later generations relied upon this promise and in times of danger reminded God of the
"covenant" sworn to David "for all generations" (Ps. 89:4-5) —reciting His commitment of
a "steadfast love" or "favor" (hasdi) "for him always" (Ps. 89:25, 29, 34). "O Lord" cries the
psalmist, "where is Your steadfast love of old [hasadekha ha-rishonim] which You swore to David
in Your faithfulness?" (Ps. 89:50), for it is this that gives him hope during the disasters of his
day (v. 51). 7 In a later divine word, the exiles of ludah and lerusalem also receive comfort from
a promise that echoes this notion of divine "favor." Speaking to the people in Babylon, God
encourages them with the words: "Incline your ear and come to Me; / Hearken, and you shall be
revived. And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, / The enduring loyalty promised to
David [hasdei david ha-ne'emanim]" (Isa. 55:3). The nation is thus assured that they will inherit
the same enduring covenant promised to David in former times.
The haftarah thus provides the foundation document of the Davidic dynasty.8 But the promise
of 2 Sam. 7:13a, that a descendant ofDavid would also build a Temple, gives the dynastic prophecy
an added dimension. It not only legitimates a Temple in the immediate future, but justifies the
hopes of later believers that the destroyed Temple would be rebuilt by a scion of David.
The historical import of 2 Sam. 7:13a is therefore remarkable—even more so given the likeli-
hood that the phrase is a secondary addition.9 For one thing, the document otherwise stresses only
the enduring dynasty ofDavid—not the building of a Temple; and for another, it opens with an
outright rejection of David's proposed building project. Nonetheless, as noted earlier, the words
"Areyou the one to build a house for Me?" (2 Sam. 7:5) leaves room for assuming that although
David himself was rebuffed, another person could be deemed acceptable.10 lust this conclusion is
now represented in the text, with its promise of a future Temple builder included in the dynastic
charter. The result is a dual promise (Temple and dynasty)11 that serves Solomon's interests in the
next generation. Indeed, in his speech upon completing the building of the Temple, he presents
himself as the legitimate heir of the dynasty and the divine promise of a future shrine (1 Kings
8:20). The idea of a new (or renewed) Temple and kingship has served as the twin pillars of
biblical and lewish messianic hope ever since.
COMMENTS
2 Samuel 6:1. assembled Hebrew va-yosef, a contracted form of va-ye'esof (Targum lo-
nathan, Rashi, Kimhi, R. Isaiah di Trani). Compare Ps. 104:29.
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM118
2. Baalim ofjudah Baalim is also referred to as Baalah and identified with Kiriath-
jearim (Josh. 15:9; 1 Chron. 13:6); it is here that the Ark remained after being retrieved from
the Philistine city of Ashdod (1 Sam. 6:21). Commentators have observed that Psalm 132 reflects
an ancient liturgy celebrating David's transfer of the Ark from "the region of Jaar" (Ps. 132:6;
being Kiriath-jearim). The old event is variously revised. Particularly noteworthy is the reference
to a priestly processional (Ps. 132:9), a more conditional formulation of the divine promise to
David's lineage (Ps. 132:11-12; cf. 2 Sam. 7:12-15), and God's choice of Zion as His "resting-
place" (Ps. 132:13-14). The last is presented as a divine revelation. This justifies David's decision
to bring the Ark to an old Jebusite city.
to which theName was attached, the 'name The Masoretic text is difficult, repeating the
noxvctshem (name). If this is a scribal error, the sentence more naturally reads: "to bring up from
there the Ark of God, which was called by the name L O R D of Hosts Enthroned on the Cherubim."
Targum Jonathan translates the text with only one occurrence of shem.
LORD ofHosts Enthroned on the Cherubim This is a fuller form of the title found in 1
Sam. 4:4. The divine epithet " L O R D of Hosts" refers to God's majesty over the heavenly armies,
with which He fights human enemies.12 These "hosts" include the sun, moon, and stars, as well
as the atmospheric powers of nature (see Judg. 5:20-21; 2 Sam. 22:11-16). From heaven, the
Lord of battles rides forth on cherub-like "wings of the wind" (2 Sam. 22:11; cf. Ps. 68:5, 10).
On earth, the Ark represents His chariot of war. The Ark with cherubim was placed in the inner
recess of the Tabernacle, and it was from there that the divine Presence was manifest to Moses
(cf. Exod. 25:18-22).
4. [Uzzah walking] Compare verses 6 - 7 [Transl.].
5. [the sound of\ all kinds of cypress wood [instruments] Compare Kimhi; the parallel
passage 1 Chron. 13:8 reads: "with all their might and with songs" [Transl.].
6.for the oxen had stumbled Taking "stumbled" (shamtu) as intransitive (with Kimhi);
but an old tradition presumed that we have here a contracted transitive verb (i. e., the oxen caused
the ark to totter; cf. Targum Jonathan and Rashi).
7 .for his indiscretion Hebrew 'al ha-shal. Targum Jonathan took this difficult form as
related to an Aramaic word for "error" (cf. Kimhi). The notion that Uzzah inadvertantly sinned
is developed by the Sages in the Talmud (B. Sotah 35a) and followed by some medieval com-
mentators (Rashi, di Trani). R. Joseph Kaspi objects. In fact, the parallel version in 1 Chron. 13:
10 reads: "because ['al }asher\ he laid [shalah] a hand on the Ark." This suggests that either %l
ha-shal is a truncated and misunderstood abridgement of 'al hishal (ah), "because he laid [a hand
on the Ark]," or that the Chronicler has interpreted and expanded a fragmentary text.
8. Perez-uzzah That is, "the Breach of Uzzah"; compare Baal-perazim ("Baal of
Breaches") in 2 Sam. 5:20 and the name Perez ("Breach") in Gen. 38:29 [Transl.].
2 Samuel 7:1. safetyfrom all the enemies Literally "rest" (heniah) from enemies (cf.
v. 11). This reference alludes to Deut. 12:10-11 where Moses tells the people that when they
achieve rest from their enemies, they must bring their burnt offerings to the place that the Lord
shall choose. Tradition understood this place to be Jerusalem, and the historian presents David
as mindful of the condition. With the Philistine enemy defeated, the king determines to build in
Jerusalem a glorious Temple for the Lord. Compare Rashi.
5.Areyou the one... ? The reason for David's rejection is not indicated. Later biblical tradi-
tion explains this as due to David's military past, having "shed much blood" (1 Chron. 22:8).
10. shall not oppress them Literally, "oppress him" (la-'anoto). The reading in 1 Chron.
17:9 is le-valoto (to wear him down); the citation of this passage in B. Berakhot 7b is le-khaloto
(to eradicate him). These are all minor orthographic variants. Perhaps Ps. 132:1 ("O L O R D ,
Iwo types of connection link the readings. The first type derives from a striking symmetry be-
tween the texts. Theparashah celebrates the dedication of the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9) and then
records the death ofNadab and Abihu by God for bringing an "alien fire" into the shrine (Lev.
10:1-2). Correspondingly, the haftarah initially describes the transport of the Ark to Jerusalem
(2 Sam. 6:2-5) and then notes the death of Uzzah by God for grasping the holy object as it
seemed to totter (w. 6-7). An old midrash observed that these two disasters caused the people
to complain, for they assumed that both the smoky "incense" (that the priests offered) and the
holy "Ark" (that Uzzah touched) were objects of punishment and danger (Tanhuma Be-shal-
lah 21). 14 For that reason, we are told, Scripture goes on to record that the incense could also
bring the people atonement and protection (during the plague after Korah's rebellion [Num.
17:12]), and the Ark could be the agent of great blessing (for the household of Obed-edom [2
Sam. 6:11]). The midrash does not elaborate further, but by its terseness lets the reader ponder
the paradoxes of the sacred—which may simultaneously be a source of life and of danger. Holy
objects are presented here as bivalent entities, affecting human life by the manner in which they
are approached and used.
Another type of connection between the haftarah an&pamshah may be observed. At one level,
it seems that the deaths of Uzzah and Nadab and Abihu are both punishments for misuse of
the sacred. However, a persistent tradition first found in Philo and the ancient midrash portrays
the deaths ofNadab and Abihu in positive terms—as a total dedication of themselves to God. 15
Their immolation is thus reconceived as an act of self-sacrifice, a "sanctified" offering to God of
all their "alien fire" or impure desires. Hence, far from being a negative case, the death of these
priests actually exemplifies an ecstatic culmination of the religious life. Consumed on the altar
of God, their earthly nature is spiritualized and transcended.
From this perspective, the deaths of Uzzah and Nadab and Abihu represent different religious
modalities. The first (Uzzah) exemplifies the death and destruction that may result when religious
worship is overly physical, concrete, and instinctive; the other (Nadab and Abihu) presents an
ideal of self-renunciation, a suppression of the physical in the service of spiritual perfection. Cer-
tainly, these are both extreme alternatives. Conceivably, the figure of David in this haftarah may
offer a middle way. Maimonides, in fact, presents such a model in the following observations on
religious practice recorded in hisMishneh Torah:
The joy [simhah] that a person should have when performing a commandment [mitzvah]
or the love of God that He commanded them is a great type of religious service. Whoever
desists from such joy is deserving of punishment, as [Scripture] says: "[Punishments will
come] because you would not serve the L O R D your God in joy and gladness" (Deut. 28:
47). And whoever becomes haughty, gives himself honor [kavod], or is full of himself
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM120
[mitka-bbed] is in these instances a sinner and a fool. Concerning this, Solomon provided
a warning, saying: "Do not exalt yourself in the King's presence" [Prov. 2 5 : 6 ] . However,
whoever humbles himself and makes little [mekel] of himself is in these instances one who
is great and honorable [mekhubad] and serves [God] in love. And thus did David say: "I
shall dishonor myself [u-nekalloti] even more and be low in my own esteem" [2 Sam. 6:
22]. And indeed, true greatness and honor [kavod] come from rejoicing [lismoah] before
the Lord, as [Scripture] says: and "King David [was] leaping and whirling before the
LORD" [v. 16]. (.HilkhotLulav 8 : 1 5 )
In this discussion, Maimonides portrays David as an exemplar of proper joyful worship—as one
who balances the physical and spiritual components of religious action. 16 On the one hand, there
is the concreteness of religious behaviors commanded by God. They are embodied by the whole
range of traditional obligations—from acts of sanctity to celebrations in dance. However, when-
ever these behaviors are performed for self-centered reasons or as an expression of one's physical
nature, they fall under the category of sin (even if scrupulously performed). Maimonides even
calls such persons sinners and fools, since their focus is on themselves and not God. On the other
hand, there is the ideal of directing all one's actions to the loving service of God. David was able
to achieve this level of worship; for he did not lose himself in ecstatic bliss, but transfigured the
physical through a spiritual expression of joy. We may deem such a consecration of the earthly
realm a middle way—one that integrates the models of Nadab and Abihu and of Uzzah into a
new synthesis of the physical and the spiritual in the service of God.
a. 2 Kings 4 : 4 2 - 4 3 A man offers Elisha food, who says to give it to the people. The attend-
ant balks because the amount seems too small, but the man of God says that this is God's will.
121 HAFTARAH FORA
' HAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
b. 2 Kings 4:44 The food proves more than sufficient, "as the LORD had said."
HAFTARAH FORA
' HAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM122
Two features of popular piety may be singled out. The first is that people sought out holy men
for consultation on topics of health or wealth. On such occasions, they would provide gifts in pay-
ment and gratitude: this is what Saul does when he visits Samuel to inquire about the lost asses of his
father, Kish (1 Sam. 9:3-14); it is what the wife ofjeroboam does when she visits Ahijah of Shiloh
concerning her sick child (1 Kings 14:1-4); and this is also what Naaman does here, when he goes
to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy. In the last case, a foreigner in fact comes to an Israelite wonder-
worker—and just this phenomenon is the second feature to be considered. When it came to matters
of health and healing, political and religious boundaries were of little concern. People wanted the best
and most respected divine aid, and they would go to a recognized shrine or healer as necessary The
Israelite king Ahaziah presumably felt the same way; after a bad fall, he sends messengers to consult
Baal-zebub, the god of Ekron, about his prognosis. Elijah is furious at this act of betrayal, indicating
the king's perfidy in turning to a foreign god for advice when there is a great "God in Israel" (2 Kings
1:2-4). This is precisely Naaman's point to Elisha when he is cured, and it is presumably also one of
the key points that the biblical narrator wishes to impress upon readers.
The magical recipe that Elisha gives Naaman is straightforward. He is told to dip seven times
in the lordan River (2 Kings 5:10). The commander had probably expected something a bit
more ceremonious—perhaps a few waves of the hand and the invocation of the God of Israel.
But surely the seven ablutions are significant. They recall the prophet Balaam's request for seven
altars for seven rams and seven bulls before his oracles (Num. 23:1-6, 29) and also remind us of
the seven priests with seven rams' horns who circumambulated lericho seven times on the seventh
day (losh. 6:6-8, 15-16). In other cases, the requisite number is three, not seven. Thus Elijah
prostrates himself over the child three times before he revives (1 Kings 17:21) and ceremoniously
douses the altar and wood three times with pails of water before calling upon God for rain (18:
34); for his part, the prophet leremiah curses King lehoiachin for his evil with an incantation,
calling three times upon the "earth" to hear the word of God and banish the king to foreign soil
(ler. 22:28-29). Both magical numbers (three and seven) are well-known in the ancient Near
East, and beyond. 3 Mentioning the sequence of immersions gives a professional touch to Elisha's
proceedings and marks him as one in the know—the heir of an ancient mantic tradition.
COMMENTS
2 Kings 4:42.A man camefrom Baal-shalishah The land of Shalishah is mentioned
along with the lands of Shaalim and Zuph, as part of the tribal lands ofBenjamin in the region
o f M o u n t Ephraim (1 Sam. 9:4-5). The specific toponym, Baal-shalishah, reflects an older Ca-
naanite habitation, named after the tutelary god of the region.
and he bro^ht... bread ofthefirst reaping In antiquity, prophets received votary gifts
for their oracular or divinatory services (1 Sam. 9:7; 1 Kings 14:3). Early rabbinic tradition
pondered the possibility that Elisha might have eaten of the first reaping (bikkurim) and explained
the passage pedagogically: "whoever brings a gift to a disciple of the wise is as one who offers
the first reaping" (B. Bikkurim 105b). 4
in"hissack Hebrew be-tziklono. This translation agrees with Gersonides. Alternatively,
the corn was still "in its ears" (Targum lonathan, followed by Rashi and Kimhi).
2 Kings 5:l.Naaman... was important to his Lard and high in hisfavor Naaman is
identified with various titles ("commander of the army") and honorifics. Of these titles, "impor-
tant "gadol, can also indicate financial status, as is the case with the "wealthy woman" ishah
gedolah) of Shunem in 2 Kings 4:8. The designation "high in favor" renders nesu} fanim (lit.,
"raised face"). 5 Other variants of this phrase indicate favorable regard (cf. Num. 6:26), 6 and
just this idiom is the subject of a pun in Gen. 4:5-6 (God asks Cain why his face has fallen and
says that if he does right, there is "uplift"; i. e., if he mends his ways, God will grant favor). The
term nesu'panim is included here with the military titles sar tzava} (commander of the army) and
gibbor hayil (great warrior). A similar cluster occurs in Isa. 3:2-3.
123 HAFTARAH FORA
' HAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
leper Hebrew metzom', which NJPS renders traditionally (the Septuagint translates
lepra). The Hebrew tzam'at refers to skin diseases on humans, and molds and fungi on clothes
and buildings (Leviticus 13-14). The symptoms mentioned in Leviticus 13 are scales and
discolorations, not suppurations or swellings. It is now assumed that tzam'at is some form of
acute psoriasis, and not Hansen's disease (the type of leprosy known as lepmAmbum).7 Notably,
Naaman's disorder did not brand him an outcast, for he came personally to the courts of the
kings of Aram and Israel.
Whatever the diagnosis, the narrative echoes features of biblical sources where quarantine
and contagion are assumed. Thus in 2 Kings 5:3, 6, and 11, the verb 'asaf (gather) is used to
indicate the "cure" of the disease. Moreover, in Num. 12:13-14, the leprous Miriam (punished
for her part in the calumny of Moses) is placed in quarantine for seven days until she is "gath-
ered" (NJPS: "readmitted") back to the community—a witty pun on the term 'asaf.\ also used
to indicate its "cure."
The seven days of quarantine (also mentioned repeatedly in Lev. 13) are echoed by the seven
immersions prescribed here by Elisha. In Lev. 14:1-7, the recovered leper is first sprinkled seven
times with a liquid solution of holy ingredients, shaves and "bathes" (mhatz), and waits seven
more days outside the camp, when he again shaves and bathes and is fully "clean" (ve-taher). The
verbs that the narrator uses to indicate bathing and cleansing in 2 Kings 5:10 and 13 are mhatz
(ve-mhatzta; reloatz) and u-tehar.
The purification rite for leprosy is also used as a metaphor in prayer to indicate inner cleans-
ing and renewal (see Ps. 51:9).
14. So he went down and immersed himself in the Jordan Naaman performs the rites
"as the man of God had bidden." A fifth-century (c.E.) tradition preserved on an inscription at
Hammat Gader (hot springs in the Yarmuk Valley) links Elijah (not Elisha) with healing the
lepers who bathed there. 8 Among other traditions of immersion to cure leprosy, one may note
the recipe found in the medieval collection of charms known as The Sword of-Moses (Harba' de-
Moshe), no. 46. 9 The Midrash Exodus Rabbah (on Exod. 2:23) makes the shocking remark that
the Pharaoh bathed in the blood of Israelite children to cure his leprosy. This rabbinic projection
may nevertheless preserve contemporary traditions, for the Roman writer Pliny reports that im-
mersion in blood was common in Egypt. 10
Another tradition of Elisha's holy powers were associated with his bones. According to 2
Kings 13:21, a corpse thrown into Elisha's grave was revived when it came in contact with his
remains. For later versions of this miracle, see B. Sanhedrin 47a and Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer,
chapter 33.
18. the temple ofRimmon The god Rimmon (in Akkadian sources, Ramman) is a
theophoric element in the name of the Aramean ruler Tabrimmon, mentioned in 1 Kings 15:
18. The name refers to "thunder" and was associated with Hadad, god of thunder, even in late
biblical sources (cf. Zech. 12:11, mentioning Hadad-rimmon). 11
The miraculous healing of leprosy in the haftarah is thematically linked to the diagnoses of
leprosy found in the second half of xhepamshah (Leviticus 13). By contrast, the first part of the
Torah reading, dealing with postpartum impurities and the prescriptions for their removal (Le-
viticus 12), finds no echo in our prophetic portion. In the ancient tradition of triennial readings
(which divided the seder from 12:1 to 13:17 or 13:28), passages were found to correspond to
this topic. For example, an old selection preserved in the Romanian rite recited Isa. 66:7-24. 1 2
In it, the theme of birth and travail marked an eschatological hope for the repopulation of Zion
by its exiles.13
The haftarah dealing with Naaman's recovery does provide some eschatological complement
to xhepamshah, insofar as it takes the theme of leprosy and dramatizes the conversion of a pagan
HAFTARAH FORA
' HAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM124
polytheist to Israelite worship. Two phrases (with liturgical overtones) make this clear: the first
is recited by Naaman after his cure: "Now I know [yada'ti] that there is no God ['ein }elohim]
in the whole world except [ki }im\ in Israel" (2 Kings 5:15); the second records Naaman's de-
termination to serve God alone and his vow that he "will never again [lo}. . . 'od] offer up burnt
offering or sacrifice to any god [lit., 'other gods,''elohim aherim], except [ki }im\ the LORD" (v.
17). Significantly, when Moses' father-in-law, lethro, a pagan priest of Midian, converts upon
hearing "everything that the L O R D had done to Pharoah and to the Egyptians for Israel's sake,"
he reportedly says, "Now I know [yada'ti] that the L O R D is greater than all gods ['elohim]" and
then "brought a burnt offering and sacrifices for God" (Exod. 18:8-12). 1 4
The correspondence between these passages is striking. Presumably, some pagan conversions
in Israelite antiquity merely involved a credal statement along with a commitment to sacrifice to
the Lord. These avowals typically included reference to a new knowledge, based on experience,
of the supremacy of the God oflsrael. This is also manifest in the liturgical exhortation preserved
in Deut. 4:35, when Moses reminds the people that "It has been clearly demonstrated to you
[lit., 'You have been shown to know,' la-da'at] that the L O R D alone is God [hu} ha-'elohim]-, there
is none beside Him." The people had experienced both the "prodigious acts" of the Exodus and
the divine voice "speaking out of fire" at Sinai (Deut. 4:33-34).
Naaman senses that it may prove difficult to maintain his exclusive allegiance to God during
his official duties, when he must serve his king and help him bend in worship in pagan shrines
(2 Kings 5:18). Elisha does not directly answer this concern but simply says, "Go in peace" (lekh
le-shalom). The parting blessing is inconclusive and may be judged positive only by innuendo
(Gersonides). Rabbinic tradition saw here a concession of sorts—an adjustment of the rules
against idolatry, given Naaman's professional constraints; his intention not to serve the pagan
gods; and the fact that any compromising actions would be done in private, and not in the pres-
ence of fellow monotheists (B. Sanhedrin 74b-75a).
ASHKENAZIM 2KINGS7:3-20
SEPHARDIM 2 KINGS 7:3-20
ASHKENAZIM 2KINGS7:3-20
SEPHARDIM 2 KINGS 7:3-20
For the contents of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its historiography, see "The Book
of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." For discussions of
other haftarah selections taken from the work, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah is part of a cycle of legends and prophecies related to Elisha and the wars against
Aram. 1 In particular, it constitutes the final section of 2 Kings 6:24-7:20, when "King Ben-hadad
of Aram mustered his entire army and marched upon Samaria and besieged it" (6:24). Scholars
have debated just which of three possible Ben-hadads is indicated here. 2 Since Israel under King
Ahab was in fact an ally of Ben-hadad II in his resistance to the attacks of the Assyrian king
Shalmaneser III (beginning in 853 B.C.E.),3 it is most plausible that the Aramean king referred
to in our text is Ben-hadad III. He was the successor of Hazael (2 Kings 8:15; 13:3) and strong
enough at the end of the ninth century B.C.E. to wage a brutal siege on Samaria against lehu.
The problem with this solution is that our narrative is part of the block of Elisha traditions set
after the accession of lehoram (2 Kings 3:1-3), the father of lehu and son of Ahab. In his day
(851-842 B.C.E.), Israel was not in a weak condition, 4 and it is in fact quite likely that lehoram
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The conclusion to the haftarah (2 Kings 7:16 + 17-20) indicates that a main purpose of the
narrative was to demonstrate the power of prophecy. In the present setting, however, the con-
clusions "as the L O R D had spoken" and "just as the man of God had spoken" hang in the air,
since they are without their predictive antecedents in 2 Kings 7:1-2. Also lost is the symmetry
of the whole narrative: prediction—action—fulfillment. Nevertheless, the form of the haftarah
has its own literary drama. It begins in the midst of a crisis (famine and siege) and ends with its
termination (food and the opening of the gates). In this setting, the fulfillment formulas ("as";
"just as") point to prophetic forces secretly at work. They suggest that the external course of
events is more than it seems: hidden within is the realization of divine predictions. History is
thus presented as the fulfillment of God's will, as announced by His prophets.
The dynamics of the haftarah moves along two axes: spatial and physical. The spatial axis is
signaled at the beginning by the lepers' position "outside the gate [sha'ar]" of Samaria (2 Kings
7:3). Their marginal status marks the boundary of the siege and the tension between the hunger
within the city walls and the provisions of the Aramean camp in the field. At the same time, the
lepers are physically betwixt and between: ritually contaminated, their dichotomous status con-
cretizes the poles of the narrative as a whole. They belong at once to the city and the field; to the
starving (native) Israelites within and to the (alien) world beyond the walls. The lepers choose
between death and life—and defect. In so doing, they move the action to the Aramean camp.
HAFTARAH FOR A
' HAREI M O T - K E D O S H I M 126
Among the empty tents of the enemy, the lepers find food and wealth; they "ate and drank . . .
carried off silver and gold . . . and buried it" (2 Kings 7:8). This they do repeatedly. The turning
point of the narrative is the lepers' recognition that they "are not doing right [ken]" (v. 9). They
thus return to the city and give word of the Aramean flight. At first, only a few of the king's men
follow the lepers out to the camp; but with their return confirming the report, the whole population
streams out of Samaria to fill their stomachs. With that, the spatial boundaries are opened and the
physical crisis resolved. Elisha's forecast concerning the low price of "barley [secorah]n in the "gate
[sha'ar]" of Samaria is gradually fulfilled (v. 18). In the end, food is in the gates—not the lepers;
and the scoffing aide-de-camp is punished, "exactly [ken]" (v. 20) as the prophet had predicted.
The movement back and forth between the city and the camp gives the illusion of an extended
time frame. This sense is reinforced by the variety of tableaux that compose the account (the
repeated plundering by the lepers; the deputation of messengers sent out to reconnoiter the scene
and report their findings; and the stampede of the people to the enemy camp). But the original
situation had been grave, and Elisha's prophecy was meant to assuage the people's fears. To that
end, he began his economic prediction with the words "This time tomorrow" (2 Kings 7:1). We
must therefore assume that the time narrated in 7:3-20 covers one day only. The many comings
and goings are thus intended to dramatize the successive stages of the events.
It is intriguing that the fulfillment of the divine oracle begins with the defection of the four
lepers at the gate. As noted, they dramatize the polarities and precariousness of the overall situa-
tion. Moreover, it is precisely their social and ritual marginality that puts them beyond the walls
and in a position to flee to the Aramean camp. As aliens among the aliens, they bring "good news"
back to the city once they overcome their private desires and think of their starving compatriots
in Samaria ("We are not doing right. This is a day of good news, and we are keeping silent!" [2
Kings 7:9]). At the core of the spatial and physical reversal, therefore, is a moral turning. When
the lepers break their silence, the word of the prophet nears fulfillment.
C O M M E N T S
2 Kings 7:3. There werefour men Rabbinic tradition has identified them with Gehazi
(Elisha's servant) and his three sons (Rashi; Kimhi).
lepers, outside thegate NIPS renders metzom'im traditionally, as "lepers." Medical analysis
indicates that the disease is not modern leprosy (Hansen's disease) but some acute scaling or
psoriasis. The general term "scale disease" is suggested. 6 Persons diagnosed with active symptoms
are segregated from society (Lev. 13:4-5); those then judged unclean must rend their garments,
unloose their hair, cover their lip, and call out, "Unclean! Unclean!" Such a one "shall dwell
apart. . . outside the camp" so long as the disease lasts (Lev. 13:45-46).
4. Come, let us desert to theAramean camp Hebrew nippelah }el indicates "desert to" an
enemy. For the idiom, see also 1 Sam. 29:3; 2 Kings 25:11; andler. 21:9, 37:14, 38:19.
6. the kings ofMizraim NIPS refers to 1 Kings 10:28 and the notcg there states that
Mizraim is "usually Egypt, [but] here perhaps Musru, a neighbor of Rue (Cilicia)" in north Syria.
This follows an old suggestion. 7 "But this view is untenable. The historical map of the ninth
and eighth centuries B.C.E. does not allow positing an independent country by such a name in
north Syria or Anatolia. The northern, trans-Tigris Musri, adjacent to Assyria, was conquered
for the last time and annexed by Ashur-dan II in the late tenth century. After that, all Akkadian
references to Musri are to Egypt; so, too, Mitzmyim in the Hebrew Bible."8
9. are not doing right Hebrew lo} khen 'anahnu 'osim. This translation follows the
Targum (also Kimhi and Gersonides). Compare loseph's remark to lacob in Gen. 48:18.
18. two seahs of barley This citation of the prophecy from 2 Kings 7:1 (repeated in v.
16) inverts the sequence of the specified items (originally flour, then barley; here the reverse).
Such reversals are often employed in inner-biblical citations. 9
127 HAFTARAH FORA
' HAREIM O T - K E D O S H I M
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D PARASHAH
The formal connection between the passages hinges on the term metzom'. This is the rabbinic title
of xhepamshah and refers to a "leper" (Lev. 14:2; NJPS), who has "a leprous affection" (tzara'at)
on his skin (Lev. 13:45) and must "dwell apart. . . outside the camp" (v. 46) until he is permitted
to undergo the ritual of cleansing. Whereas the portion of Tazria' (Leviticus 12-13) includes the
detailed diagnostics of the disease (Leviticus 13), that of Metzora' (Leviticus 14-15) focuses on
the rites of human purification (14:1-32) and includes an appendix on diagnosing and purging
the infection in buildings (w. 33-57). When the two portions are combined or Metzora' is read
alone, the haftarah recited is 2 Kings 7:3-20. The disease of tza-m'a-t, and a historical example
of ritual-social segregation, link the passages.
Various biblical passages indicate a belief that tzara'at was inflicted by God for untoward
behavior (Num. 12:9; 2 Kings 5:27; 2 Chron. 26:18-21). In particular, Miriam is punished for
slandering her brother Moses (Num. 12:9) —and this case became the core for various rabbinic
lists warning of dire consequences for moral or ritual sins (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 17:3; 18:
4; and B. Arakhin 16a). Many old sermons turn on a pun between the word metzora' and the
rabbinic term for slander or vilification—wotez^ (shem) m' (see Leviticus Rabbah 15-16). In fact,
the homiletical relationship between tzara'at and sin explains the recitation oflsa. 57:17-19 as
a haftarah in many old Palestinian rites. And the relationship between sin and physical affliction
also accounts for the use of many other passages (like Eccles. 5:5) in classical rabbinic sermons
for the Torah portions ofTazria' and Metzora'. 10
N o similar teaching was used explicitly to correlate 2 Kings 7:3-20 and the portion of
Metzora'. Nevertheless, a trace may be detected in a sermon for xh&tpamshah preserved in the
Midrash Tanhuma. 11 We learn that Gehazi, the servant of Elisha, is one of four commoners af-
flicted with leprosy for improper speech (2 Kings 5:20, 27). 12 Since 2 Kings 7:3 speaks of four
lepers at the gate, it may be that this homily conceals an old tradition that linked the leprous
Gehazi (and three others) to the scene at Samaria. This assumption is reinforced by a tradition
in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 107b) that states that Gehazi's leprosy was inherited by
his children and that he and his three sons are the four lepers mentioned in our haftarah. 13 This
rabbinic tradition reinforces the earlier observation that the lepers' decision to speak correctly
about the condition in the field is a turning point of the narrative. Honest speech thus serves as
a symbol of communal well-being.
ASHKENAZIM EZEKIEL22:1-19
SEPHARDIM EZEKIEL 22:1-16
For the haftarah for Aharei Mot-Kedoshim for Ashkenazim, see next haftarah.
For the haftarah for Aharei Mot-Kedoshim for Sephardim, see later.
For a discussion of Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see
"The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah contains an address by Ezekiel to the city Jerusalem, which he arraigns for "all
her abhorrent deeds" (Ezek. 22:2). These sins are grouped in several clusters and emphasize
moral and sexual crimes in the family and society, with special emphasis on the oppression of
socially dependent and powerless persons. The prophet also charges the city with desecrating
the Sabbaths and sacral offices. For Ezekiel, the city symbolizes the outrages of the population
as a whole, and the arraignment constitutes a comprehensive judgment. It dates from sometime
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM128
between Ezekiel's deportation to Babylon in 597 B.C.E. and the year 586 B.C.E., when the Baby-
lonians destroyed Jerusalem and the general population was exiled to Babylon.
Though spoken from exile, there is no indication that the prophet was ecstatically transported
to Jerusalem in order to envision its crimes—as was reported for his depiction of the paganizing
rituals performed in the Temple (see Ezek. 8:3; dated to 591 B.C.E.). Moreover, Ezekiel does not
refer to cultic outrages here but restricts his rebukes to civil and sacral crimes (22:1-16). A final
oracle offers hope and homecoming after the disaster (w. 17-19).
C O M M E N T S
Ezekiel 22:2. arraign, arraign Literally, the interrogative "will you arraign?"4 In Ezek.
20:4, as here, the verb is repeated at the beginning of a prophetic speech. The rhetorical nature
of the question asked by God gives it emphatic force (i. e., "will you arraign?" has the force of
"surely you will arraign!"). For the forensic structure of arraignment and declaration, see also
20:4 (cf. 16:2 and 23:36). 5
city of bloodshed A recurrent image. See Ezek. 7:23; 9:9; 24:6, 9 (cf. also 22:4, 6, 9,
13). Because of its plunder and rapaciousness, the Assyrian city of Nineveh was also called a
"city of bloodshed" (Nah. 3:1; NJPS: "city of crime"). On the basis of the elaboration in Ezek.
22:6, 9, and 27, the concern is with "judicial murder" where the deaths are the result of the evil
use of legal power. 6
3. so that your hour is approaching Literally, "so that her time is approaching;" immi-
nently (R. Eliezer of Beaugency).7 The evils bring about divine doom (cf. Rashi). Alternatively, the
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM130
prophet announces that the time for judgment has come. 8 The structure of the verse is apparently
a parallelism, with the continuity referring to the other actions that bring about impurity.
fetishes Meaning idols; Hebrewgittulim. On the basis of the context, Abravanel suggests
that this is a metaphor for "all the other sins" besides bloodshed that the people have done. 9
become unclean Ezekiel's priestly orientation transforms Israels civil-legal crimes into
ritual, polluting ones (cf. w. 3-5, 10, 15). In this, he was particularly indebted to older priestly
traditions that treated illicit consanguinity (cf. Lev. 18:19-20, 24-25). Ezekiel includes bloodshed
and economic oppression in his list. This is a recurrent feature of his language and sensibility
(cf. Ezek. 20:23; 24:11-13; 36:22-32). The theological emphasis is that immorality is also a
pollution, and the land must be purged by expelling the perpetrators. 10
5. O besmirched of name Alternatively, this phrase is the derogatory epithet spoken
against them by the surrounding gentiles (Rashi).
7. Fathers and -mothers have been humiliated This reflects the Masoretic punctuation
heikallu (hif'il of k-l-l). It is a variant of the formulation in Deut. 27:16 (makleh; hif'il of k-l-h).
For cursing (pi'el of k-l-l), see Exod. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9.
have been cheated Hebrew ba-'oshek. For this syntactic form, see verse 12; also 8:18
and 23:29.
9. upon the mountains That is, in idolatry [Transl.].
10-11. The prophet details various sexual offenses (incest, adultery, and cohabitation with
a woman in her menses). In terms of technical vocabulary and person (third), this legal cluster
follows Lev. 20:10-18. Further indication that Ezekiel was drawn to this list is the fact that he
omits the offenses mentioned in Lev. 20:19-20. As these are not incest prohibitions and differ
in gender and number from the other prohibitions, it is possible that they are later additions to
Leviticus 20 and that Ezekiel borrowed from the list in an earlier form. 1 1
10."haveuncovered theirfathers' nakedness That is, have cohabited with a former wife
of the father; compare Lev. 18:7-8 [Transl.].
12. advance and accrued interest That is, interest deducted in advance and interest added
at the time of repayment; compare Lev. 25:36 [Transl.].
the LORD have spoken and I ivill act Promise andfulfillment are linked. Alternatively, "I
14.1
am YHWH; what I have spoken I will do!" 12 On this reading, the first part of the verse is Ezekiel's
common formula " I am the L O R D " ; the second is an attribute of reliability (see also 1 7 : 2 4 ) . 1 3
16. Tou shall be dishonored Hebrew ve-nihalt bakh. The prophet uses a word linked to
ritual desecration (see v. 8; and Lev. 18:21; 19:8). In the present form, the verbis best construed
as a nif'al (of h-l-l) with a reflexive sense (cf. R. Eliezer of Beaugency). By contrast, the Septuagint
and R. David Kimhi construed the verb as api'el (of nahal), conveying the sense that the nation
will "inherit" its punishment. Since the predicted shame is exile, this verb is ironic, suggesting
the nuance of an inheritance of doom. The pun may be deliberate.
18. the House oflsrael has become dross This is a negative image and used to convey a
sense of refinement in prophetic rebukes; compare Isa. 1:22, 25 and Jer. 6:28-30. The meaning
of sig (dross) is unclear and possibly refers to some alloy oflead and silver.14 In this metallurgi-
cal trope, the people who are dross will be refined in fire as a punishment. In reality, dross is the
process of liquefaction of the metals. For Ezekiel, the melting fire is both a proving of Israel's
guilt and their punishment. 15
C O N N E C T I O N S BETWEEN T H E H A F T A R A H A N D PARASHAH
The haftarah stresses cultic and moral sins. Many are connected with Torah laws found in Aharei
Mot. On the one hand, there is a clear link to the sexual prohibitions found in Leviticus 18 and
131 HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
20. Note, for example, the prohibitions of consanguinity (incest with father, sister, daughter-
in-law; cf. Lev. 18:7, 9, 15; 20:10, 12, 17; and Ezek. 22:10f.); of intercourse with women in
their menses (cf. Lev. 18:19; 20:18; and Ezek. 22:10); and ofadultery (cf. Lev. 18:20; 20:10;
and Ezek. 22:11). 16 The prophet's diatribe also includes materials found in Leviticus 19. This
includes the profanation of the Sabbath (cf. Lev. 19:3 and Ezek. 22:8), the economic oppres-
sion of compatriots (cf. Lev. 19:13 and Ezek. 22:12), and base activities leading to bloodshed
(cf. Lev. 19:16 and Ezek 22:9). Ezekiel was thus inspired by the laws of the Torah and utilized
them in his prophetic discourse (for Leviticus 20, see Comments).
The correlation between the prophetic discourse and the Torah proscriptions underscores
the legal-theological consequences for disobedience. It establishes a structure of accountability
in all areas of life—sexuality and the family; morality and the community; sacred days and
acts of worship. In all these areas one may enact the covenant, which the Torah calls a way
of life (Lev. 18:4-5). By stressing the point that covenantal behavior is something one lives
by [ye-hay ba-hem [Lev. 18:5]), theparashah raises Torah living into a spiritual principle. By
contrast, by emphasizing that maltreatment of the poor and needy is an act of bloodshed,
the haftarah turns immorality into an abasement of life. And by speaking of sin as an act of
defilement, the haftarah and pamshah understand the covenant to be a means of sanctification.
In this way, all covenantal actions perform a priestly service, transforming the quality of the
natural and social world.
For the haftarah for Kedoshim for Sephardim, see next haftarah.
For the haftarah for 'Aharei Mot-Kedoshim for Sephardim, see next haftarah.
For Amos's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see "The Book of
Amos" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the comments on
the other haftarah reading taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The prophet Amos is among the earliest of the classical prophets, appearing during the reign
of King leroboam II oflsrael (784-748 B.C.E.) and King Uzziah of ludah (769-733 B.C.E.).
Speaking against ludah and especially the northern kingdom of Israel, Amos upbraids the peo-
ple for cultic sins and moral insensitivity. His words are all doom and dire prediction—save for
the concluding lines, which constitute the final part of this haftarah. Opening with a judgment
speech against sinful nations, his people included, Amos then promises hope and restoration to
Israel and ludah in days to come.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
In a striking reversal, Amos's final words counterpoint his opening speech. Addressing the nation
years before, the prophet spoke God's word "concerning the whole family that I [God] brought
up from the land of Egypt: You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth—that
is why I will call you to account for all your iniquities" (Amos 3:1-2). This specialness is now
revised, as God tells the people that He will judge their sins because they are no different from
other nations (like the Philistines and Arameans) whom He has delivered to their homeland.
"True, I brought Israel up from the land ofEgypt"; but this will not save them from judgment
(9:7-8a).
These remarks were designed to unsettle the listener and undermine any false sense of trust. 1
For Amos, historical redemption is not the basis for the divine election of Israel—or for its sur-
vival.2 Accordingly, the formulation in our haftarah does not contradict the prophet's teachings
elsewhere. In fact, even in Amos 3:1-2 the Exodus is not presented as the reason for Israel's
special status. This unique condition is rather presented as an aspect of divine decision—much
like God's determination to save a remnant oflsrael in 9:8b. In both cases, God's will and grace
are the key factors determining national destiny. Israel thus remains accountable to the covenant.
Obedience and the acceptance of divine judgment is in the hands of the people; all else depends
upon God.
God's decision to save a remnant of the northern nation and to scatter them in exile is
presented as an expression of divine kindness—wholly without justification; 3 for the sins
of the people should have led to their utter doom. This act of grace is presented through
the image of a sieve that scatters some particles while catching others in the grating. The
strewn elements are apparently the people who are saved, in contradistinction to the sin-
ners, who remain in the instrument and do not escape its mesh (Amos 9:8b-9). 4 From the
standpoint of Amos's rhetoric, the survivors are those who do not deny divine judgment—or
do not deserve acquittal for any other reason (cf. v. 10). For later readers the prophet's
pronouncement seems to forecast the dispersion of the northern tribes, 5 an event that still
lay in the future (722 B . C . E . ) .
More perplexing is the prediction that God "will set up again the fallen booth ofDavid"
(Amos 9:11). The obscurity of this image and the ensuing references to widespread ruins
have long puzzled interpreters, not least because the destruction of the Temple and of
ludah lay nearly two centuries ahead (586 B.C.E.).6 At any rate, readers of these words are
promised a restoration of the Davidic era—when expansion was at a height and national
unity a reality.7 The dooms forecast against ludah shall therefore be wholly assuaged by a
renewal of the "days of old" (cf. Amos 2:4-5 and 9:11). In those times ludah dominated
Edom, and so it will again.
The restoration oflsrael is the fitting complement to these hopes. Here, too, ancient
dooms shall be reversed—now through a miraculous regeneration of life (cf. Amos 2:
6 - 1 6 and 9:13-15). The cycle of nature will be so bountiful as to overlap itself repeatedly;
scarcely will the older harvests be gathered when the times for new planting shall begin.
In a dramatic image, Amos speaks of the planters planted in the earth, nevermore to be
uprooted from their homeland. As a sign of this new era, Israel shall again be called "My
people" (v. 14).
Amos 9:7. To Me, O Israelites Grammatically, this assertion is a question: "Are ye not
[ha-lo*] as the children of the Ethiopians unto Me, O children oflsrael?" (OJPS). The interroga-
tive particle loa-lo} introduces a type of disputation form in which a certain reality or expectation
is contradicted or a certain difference is leveled. Compare Amos 5:20; Isa. 10:9; and Mai. 2:10.
The precise intent of the comparison is not given and presumes a perception of otherness—now
denied.
Caphtor This toponym is most likely to be identified with Crete (cf. Jen 47:4, where the
Philistines are identified with this place).9 Cappodocia and Cyprus have also been proposed.
Kir In Amos 1:5, the people will be exiled back to Kir. Compare 2 Kings 16:9, which
reports that the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III deported the inhabitants of Damascus to Kir
(ca. 734 B.C.E.). The toponym is unattested in other Near Eastern sources. Isaiah 22:6 is too
opaque to allow for topographic conclusions.
8. the Lord GOD has His eye Literally, "the eyes of the Lord GOD" (OJPS). The "eyes"
dramatize the investigative character of divine justice. Compare Zech. 4:10. The image appar-
ently derives from the older Near Eastern identification of royal investigators with the eyes of
the king. This political image is theologized in the Bible.10
But Hebrew 'efes ki is a reservation clause. Alternatively, "however."11 See in Num. 13:
27-28 and 2 Sam. 12:13-14.
9. sieve Hebrew kevamh. This word only occurs here in the Bible; the exact type of mesh
is unknown. The text seems to suggest a coarse sieve, used to strain straw and stones (NJPS
note); 12 Ibn Ezra and Kimhi assume it to be a fine mesh. For the image, compare Ben Sira 27:
4, "In the shaking of a sieve the refuse remains."13
10. "Nevershall the evil..." A quote exemplifying the boastful disdain of the people.
NJPS understands "evil" (ra'ah) as the subject of the clause, thus taking the Hebrew verbs taggish
(overtake) and ve-takdim (come near) as third-person singular feminine. This follows the view
of Targum Jonathan and Rashi. Nevertheless, the verbs are difficult and unusual; tiggash and
ve-tekaddem are expected.14 Alternatively, the verbs may be construed as second-person singular
masculine. This would yield the more arrogant assertion, "Never shall you [God] allow the evil
to overtake us or come near us." 15
11.1 will set up again "Again" is interpretative and not represented in the Hebrew text.
Alternatively, "In that day will I raise up" (OJPS).
booth This image is unclear. Some have interpreted the metaphor in terms of the fallen
state of the Davidic (united) monarchy (Rashi; Kimhi). 16 The subsequent reference to ruins
makes this understanding difficult. Many moderns assume a postexilic addition; this view can-
not be overlooked.
12. the rest of Edom The "rest" (she'erit) refers to the remnant of a nation. For this expres-
sion elsewhere in Amos, see 1:8 and 5:15 (referring to the Philistines and Joseph, respectively).
The historical allusion is vague. Most broadly, it anticipates the restoration of the Davidic empire
to its ancient glory.
Some commentators explain the passage as a specific hope for the restoration of that part
of Edom (the port of Elath) that was part of the Judean kingdom under Uzziah (2 Kings 14:
22), but subsequently lost by Ahaz (2 Kings 16:6). 17 If so, the oracle would be part of a later
prophecy on behalf of a restored Davidic dominion. Others, presuming a postexilic situation (see
previous verse), regard this prophecy as an expression of the later hope that a hated participant
in Judah's destruction would be vanquished (cf. Ps. 137:7; Obadiah 9-21). 18
The pamshah and haftarah present a dramatic contrast, inviting a reconsideration of the elec-
tion of Israel. In bold terms, the Torah lesson issues a challenging proclamation to the nation:
"You shall be holy to Me, for I the L O R D am holy, and I have set you apart from other peoples
to be Mine [li-hyot /z]" (Lev. 20:26). Two distinct features are mentioned: the people are chosen
unilaterally to be God's special people, and they are also set apart from other nations. But this
election is not without conditions. As the context makes clear, Israel may only realize its special
status through faithful observance of the covenant. In this sense, the nation's actualization of
sanctity is a realization of its divine destiny.
The haftarah stands in contrast to this teaching; for in the divine assertion that Israel is "to
Me [/z] . . . just like the Ethiopians" (Amos 9:7), there is a denial of special election and any
unique destiny awaiting fulfillment. Israel is a nation among the nations, and its particular history
has parallels among its neighbors. Nevertheless, this neutralization of chosenness does not deny
national memory or the path of piety that is distinctively Israel's. It only means that Israel may
not rely upon divine grace in the past as a guarantee of mercy in the present. The triumphal as-
sertions of difference (such as found in theparashah) must therefore be transformed into a more
challenging awareness of national-religious distinction. Kept apart, the parashah and haftarah
cancel each other's teaching about election; brought together, they offer the possibility of a more
nuanced theology of chosenness.
For the haftarah for Kedoshim for Ashkenazim, see previous haftarah.
For the haftarah for 'Aharei Mot-Kedoshim for Ashkenazim, see previous haftarah.
For a discussion of Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see
"The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the comments on the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
Ezekiel 20:2-20 is part of a sermonic retrospective on Israel's sinful past (w. 2-29) and
present (w. 30-32), which concludes with prophecies of national restoration and the renewal
of proper worship (w. 33-44). In all, five periods are distinguished: (1) the sojourn in Egypt
(w. 5-10); (2) the first wilderness generation (w. 11-17); (3) the second wilderness generation
(w. 18-26); (4) settlement in the Land (w. 27-29); and (5) the exilic present and the future
hope (w. 30-44). 1 These historical frames are presented symmetrically and schematically: units
1 - 3 focus on divine instructions, Israelite apostasy, and the restraint of divine wrath, and unit 5
counterpoints or complements the earlier themes. In particular, the topic of continuous apostasy
and divine attempts at instruction are emphasized in all units. The whole discourse is framed by
a reference to the first Exodus, depicted as an act of redemption performed despite the nation's
sin, and a threat of a new exodus, by which the sinful people will be gathered from its exile in a
blaze of divine fury. The sermon is dated to 10 Av 591 B.C.E., according to Ezek. 20:1.
The haftarah covers the first three historical periods. It subdivides into four parts.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
At the beginning of the discourse, God rejects the inquiry of the elders in exile and arraigns the
people for their sins. The precise nature of the query is not stated and cannot be inferred from
the content of the prophet's remarks;2 indeed, God's refusal to respond rules out all suppositions
regarding the content of the question.3
God's word to Ezekiel opens with the double query loa-tishpot loa-tishpot ("will you arraign, will
you arraign?" [Ezek. 20:4]; NJPS: "Arraign, arraign them"), whose rhetorical effect is to create
the urgency of a direct request to "arraign" the people.4 The detailed specification that follows is
C O M M E N T S
Ezekiel 20:3. Have you come to inquire ofMe ? Ezekiel is approached by a delegation of
elders who wish an oracular consultation with God (v. 1). The prophet thus acts as a medium (cf.
v. 2:"and the word of the L O R D came to me") who provides the divine response ( W . 3 and 3 1 ; cf.
14:3, 7). This use of the verb da-rash (inquire) has roots in oracular functions (cf. Gen. 2 5 : 2 2 ) ,
often performed by Israelite and foreign prophets ( 1 Sam. 9:9; 1 Kings 2 2 : 5 - 8 ; and 2 Kings 1 :
3, 6 ) . It is also found in connection with Jeremiah, Ezekiel's contemporary (Jer. 2 1 : 2 ) .
137 HAFTARAH FOR 'AHAREI MOT-KEDOSHIM
Such divinatory uses of the verb are distinct from prophetic appeals to the people to "seek"
(darash) after God (Hos. 10:12; Amos 5:4; Isa. 55:6) or references in the Psalms addressed to
the religious seeker (Pss. 24:6; 34:11). The oracular dimension is revised in postexilic sources
to indicate the interpretive inquiry of the Torah (Ezra 7:10:"to inquire" or "study the Teaching
of the LORD").6 The verb darash is the stem of the noun midrash.
4. arraign them The verb is ha-tishpot-, literally, the query "will you arraign?" An old
interpretive tradition (Targum lonathan), continued in the Middle Ages (Rashi; Kimhi), consid-
ers this a rebuke or reproof. This understanding has some basis in biblical usage. R. Eliezer of
Beaugencycompares 1 Sam. 12:7 7 .
5-7. The references to God's self-revelation in Egypt and the divine oath to bring the
people to the Promised Land derive from Exod. 6:2-8. However, in Ezekiel's discourse, the
revelation is to all the people (not just Moses), and the divine oath to redeem the people is given
to the nation in Egypt. Moreover, the references to Israelite idolatry in Egypt and to a divine
warning to desist are traditions virtually unique to Ezekiel. In the Hebrew Bible, only losh. 24:
14 suggests that there was apostasy in Egypt. Some rabbinic comments point in the same direc-
tion (cf. Targum Yerushalmi on Exod. 12:21; and Exodus Rabbah 6:3).
6. which I had sought out "Sought out": tarti. This verb and the imagery of "eyes,"
"heart," and "go astray" (w. 7, 16, 24, 30), suggest the reverberation ofNum. 15:39 throughout
the speech.8
9. I acted for the sake of .My name That is, the motivation for divine restraint is to
avoid profanation of the name of God among the nations (see also w. 14, 22). It has a parallel
in Moses' intercessory appeal to God's self-interest in Exod. 32:11-13. This tradition may have
been in Ezekiel's mind, since the verb killah (to destroy) is used there (Exod. 32:12) and in Ezek.
20:9. Elsewhere, profanation of the divine name is the result of Israelite apostasy (Ezek. 20:39;
22:26; cf. Lev. 19:12). The counterpoint, that God will sanctify His name through an act of
redemption, closes the present sermon (v. 44). 9
In Ezek. 20:9, 14, and 22, the theme of desecration of the name serves to explain events of
the past and the survival oflsrael. 10
11. Igave themMy laws At Sinai. This accords with the priestly view; see Lev. 26:46.
12. Ijyave them My sabbaths The Sabbath is singled out among the covenantal laws
(also w. 16, 20, 21, 24). This emphasis is a characteristic of late biblical literature (see Isa. 56:
2-6). Desecration of the Sabbath came to be regarded as the archetypal sin that caused the exile
(Neh. 13:18; cf. ler. 17:19-27). 11 Correspondingly, Isa. 58:13-14 envisages proper observance
of the Sabbath as the chief justification for national restoration. 12
it is I the LORD who sanctify them The idea that the Sabbath is a sign between God and
Israel, so that the people may know that the Lord sanctifies them, is derived from Exod. 31:13. In
Ezek. 20:20, the language of sanctification is dropped, producing a different theological idea.
13. the House oflsrael rebelled... in the wilderness. This is comprehensive and un-
specific. They rebelled with the Golden Calf (Exod. 32:17-24) and at Rephidim (Exod. 17:2).
Focusing on Ezekiel's language, Rashi suggests that the phrase "they rebelled [va-yamru]n refers
to the lack of faith at Marah (Exod. 15:23-24); and the words "and they grossly desecrated My
sabbaths" refers to the transgression concerning gathering the manna (Exod. 16:16-21). Kimhi
lists all four events.
A concern with the divine commandments and sanctifications links the haftarah andpamshah. In the
pamshah, Moses speaks for God and calls upon the people to "be holy" (kedoshim tihyu) and "keep
My sabbaths" (Lev. 19:2-3). Thereupon a whole series of behaviors is enumerated and classified as
HAFTARAH FOR 'AHAREI MOT-KEDOSHIM 138
leading to holiness in God's sight. This theme recurs at the end of the unit, when God exhorts the
people, saying: "You shall faithfully observe My laws \u-shemartem }et hukkotai va-'asitem 'otam]:
I the L O R D make you holy \'ani YHWH mekaddishkhemY (Lev. 20:8). Correspondingly, Ezekiel
repeats God's ancient word of instruction that the people "follow My laws and be careful to observe
My rules \be-hukkotai lekhu ve'et mishpatai shimru va-'asu ^otew]" (Ezek. 20:19; cf. v. 11). They are
also told to "hallow My sabbaths" (v. 20), for it is a sign that "it is I the L O R D who sanctify [the
people]" (font YHWH mekaddisham [v. 12]). Like Moses, Ezekiel emphasizes the centrality of the
Law—and the divine sanctification of the people by and through it.
The parashah and haftarah share another phrase that underscores the special nature of the
divine instruction—and that is the one that emphasizes that God gave the people His "laws"
(:mishpatai) and "rules" (hukkotai) "by the pursuit of which a man shall live" ('asherya'aseh Jotam
ha-'ada-m -pa-hay ba-hem) (Lev. 18:5 and Ezek. 20:11, 13, 21). The phrase is compact and the
theology rich. On the one hand, it promises physical life for the observance of God's laws—a
boon emphasized elsewhere by the prophet (Ezek. 18:9) and in other books of the Torah (cf.
Deut. 30:15-19). On this reading, the phrase -pa-hay ba-hem has an instrumental sense, teaching
that one will attain the blessings of earthly life "by means of" the laws. However, generations of
postbiblical readers understood the true reward of the Law to be in the spiritual life such piety
engenders—be that in a blissful afterlife (cf. Targum and Ibn Ezra on Lev. 18:5; Nahmanides
on Lev. 18:4; and Maimonides,.M«^w^ Torah, Hilkhot Me'ilah 8:8) or in and through a life
of sanctity in this world. For such seekers, the Torah fosters a spiritual path whose fulfillment
depends upon their total attachment to God (Nahmanides)—who is the divine source of life
and cosmic vitality (SefatEmet).
For a discussion of Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see
"The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
Ezekiel 44:15-31 opens with an announcement that only levitical priests of Zadokite descent
may serve in the future Temple (w. 15-16)—because of the sacrilege of the non-Zadokite priests
who allowed foreigners into the First Temple (w. 9-14). Following this stipulation, a collection
of priestly rules and regulations is presented (w. 17-31). These have a close affinity with laws
found in the Book of Leviticus, and are a part of the blueprint for cultic restoration found in
Ezekiel 40-48. 1 Ezekiel's vision of the ground plan of the New Temple is dated to the beginning
of the year 572 B.C.E., fourteen years after the fall of Jerusalem (Ezek. 40:1). 2 The instructions
that constitute our haftarah follow this event.
Since antiquity it has been observed that a number of the priestly regulations promulgated
by Ezekiel contradict their counterparts in the Torah (see below). For this reason, we are told
that there was a move to withdraw the Book of Ezekiel from circulation. According to Rav
Judah, on the authority of Rav, it was only due to a heroic act of exegesis by one Hananiah ben
Hizkiyah that the difficulties were reconciled (B. Shabbat 13b). The nature ofhis solutions is
not reported, and many solutions to the contradictions have been proposed by the medieval and
later commentators. 3 A separate talmudic tradition reports that a satisfactory resolution to one
of the difficulties was suspended for the future, when Elijah himselfwould interpret the matter
(B. Menahot 45a).
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM140
b. Ezekiel 44:23-24 states the duty of the priests to instruct in sacral matters (the clean and
unclean; the sacred and profane), and also to act as judges in civil cases, deciding the law in
accordance with the Torah. Their job is to preserve the laws of God, as well as the festival and
sabbath regulations. Leviticus 10:10-11 speaks of sacral and other instructions by the priests
but makes no mention of their judicial function, which is first found in Deut. 17:8-11. As in
the priestly traditions, the Deuteronomic text uses the verbyom for this official teaching. Ezekiel
thus seems to combine earlier functions.
2. LEVITICUS 21-22
a. Ezekiel 44:20 states that all priests must wear their hair trimmed (expressly prohibiting
shaven heads and untrimmed hair). Leviticus 21:10 outlaws loose, untrimmed hair for the High
Priest only. Ezekiel's rule is therefore more comprehensive.
b. Ezekiel 44:22 forbids all priests to marry (lay) widows and divorcees but permits them to
marry virgins of all Israel (not just those of priestly descent) and widows of priests. By contrast,
Lev. 21:7 forbids harlots and divorcees to priests; 21:13-14 adds that the High Priest cannot
in addition marry any widow and is restricted to virgins of his kin. Ezekiel thus knows only one
priestly group and issues a comprehensive ruling. Rashi attempted several resolutions of the
contradictions in his commentary to B. Hagigah 13a.
c. Ezekiel 44:25 prohibits priestly defilement with corpses, limiting contact to certain blood
relatives. The ruling in Lev. 21:1-4 is virtually the same, though the style is different. Ezekiel 44:
26-27 articulates a purification process before the priest can be reincorporated into the priestly
rota. He thus protects against the defilement of the sacred objects. This is also the concern of
Lev. 22:3-4, but from a more comprehensive standpoint.
In addition to these differences and variations, Ezekiel's rules restrict priestly vestments
to flaxen garments (Ezek. 44:17-19; pishtim, NIPS: "linen"), with no mention of the vestments
of gold worn by the High Priest, or the "fine linen" garments worn by the High Priest and his
sons, according to the priestly sources of the Pentateuch (Exod. 29:6-40, 42; called shesh and
bad, respectively).4 His failure to specify such details is a puzzling aspect of Ezekiel's document,
given its manifest purpose to be a self-standing messianic program. Also striking is the absence
of any mention of the Ark and cherubim in the inner sanctuary, or the table for the bread of
display in the outer area, or the anointing oil in the Temple or the courts.5 There is also no refer-
ence to the purgation of the Temple on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), to the dramatic
ceremonies of the Passover eve (Exod. 12:1-14), or to the species used to celebrate the festival
ofTabernacles (Lev. 23:39-43).
These glaring gaps raise questions concerning the prophet's relationship to earlier priestly
traditions. The issue is further exacerbated by the register of different quantities prescribed for
the daily offerings; the additional (musaf) offering for the Sabbath, New Moon, and festivals;
and the proportions of wheat and oil to be blended in the grain (minhah) offering. Taking all this
into account, one must necessarily conclude that in many respects Ezekiel's code shows no direct
dependence upon the priestly sources canonized in the Torah.6 In fact, the content of Ezekiel's
text sits awkwardly alongside the laws prescribed in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. No wonder
the Sages were puzzled and considered withdrawing the book from circulation.
Ezekiel's collection of priestly rules thus appears to reflect an independent strand of cultic
tradition. For him, concern with priestly comportment and purity is uppermost. Special empha-
sis is placed not only on what is externally contagious and dangerous, but also on the physical
incorporation of inappropriate substances that can render a priest unfit. The prohibition of
intoxicants is one case; the restriction on eating unslaughtered game (dying of natural causes or
being ripped by predators) is another (Ezek. 44:31). On the other hand, eating of sacrificial and
other offerings devoted to God is a divine right of the priests. Being the "portion" of God gives
them special benefits (v. 29), and giving the priests the first fruits of the earth may even endow
the provider with heavenly blessing (v. 30).
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 44:15. levitical priests This title refers to priests of the tribe of Levi (Rashi). The
designation first occurs in Deut. 18:1, not in priestly sources. The subsequent phrase in Deut. 18:
1, "the whole tribe of Levi," emphasizes that all the Levites are priests and eligible for service in
the Temple. The phrase in Deuteronomy contradicts the formulation in Leviticus and Numbers,
where the priesthood is restricted to the family of Aaron. Just this enlargement of the priestly
privileges was the very basis of Korah's rebellion (Num. 16:3), and the subsequent miracle of
the staffs gave divine legitimacy to the Aaronid line (Num. 17:16-24). In Ezekiel, the expanded
priesthood is now restricted to the Zadokites alone, as a reward for their faithful service.
Zadok This is the ancestral line of priests in Jerusalem. Zadok originally served as a
bearer of the Ark for David, along with Abiathar (2 Sam. 15:24-29, 35; 17:15). Zadok sup-
ported Solomon for dynastic succession (1 Kings 1:8, 32), while Abiathar backed Adonijah (1:
7). Zadok therefore anointed Solomon king (1:39-45). Eventually, Solomon banished Abiathar
(2:27), and Zadok remained the sole priest of the king. The origins of this priestly clan are un-
known. Some have located them as priests at the shrine of Gibeon (cf. 1 Chron. 16:39); others
have argued for a Jebusite origin (cf. Ps. 110:4). 7
According to biblical genealogies, the priests of the Second Temple were of the Zadokite
line up to the Hasmonean rebellion. The Hasmonean priests were not Zadokite. This led to
internal divisions among the various groups that constituted late Second Temple Jewry. Speaking
on behalf of the old priestly lineage, Ben Sira praises God for choosing the Zadokites (Ben Sira
51:29), and the Qumran sectarians considered Zadokites the only pure and legitimate lineage,
identifying with them in the present (Serekh ha-Tahad, 5:1) and expecting their restoration in
the future (Serekh ha-'Edah, 2:3).
16. My table This may refer to the altar itself, and not to the table of the bread of display
(Targum Jonathan; Kimhi).
17, 19. According to rabbinic tradition, we have references here to the sacred areas: "the
gates of the inner court" (v. 17) are in front and within the Temple (Rashi); whereas the first
"outer court" mentioned in verse 19 refers to the women's court (Rashi); and the "outer court
where the people are" refers to the court of the male Israelites (Kimhi).
19. remove the -vestments... and... deposit them in the sacred chambers Compare 42:
13-14:"Before proceeding to the area open to the people, they shall put on other garments"
[Transl.].
lest they make the people consecrated Thereby rendering the people unfit for ordinary
activity [Transl.]. The concern is to avoid the transfer of the holiness of the vestments to the
laity; it is not to avoid the appearance that the people were holy like the priests (Kimhi). For a
similar concern in this period, see Hag. 2:11-13. 8
22. -widows Thatis, oflaymen [Transl.].
25. He shall defile himself onlyfor Some ancient Rabbis noted the absence of the wife
here and in Lev. 21:2-3. They resolved the matter by suggesting that the reference to near kin
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM142
in Lev. 21:2 refers to her (cf. B. Yevamot 90b). R. Eliezer of Beaugency rejects this view: "but
he may not be defiled by [the corpse of] his wife." 9
26-27. The rules of decontamination from corpse defilement in Ezek. 44:26-27 seem
to differ from Numbers 19, where only a seven-day period of purification is prescribed. The ad-
dition here of another week for priestly purification has been understood as a special stringency
for the future. See R. Eliezer ofBeaugency and R. David Kimhi.
28-31. This shall be their portion The idea that God is the priests' portion refers to their
receipt of portions of the sacrifices offered (Josh. 13:14; cf. Ezek. 44:29a) and to the Israelite
tithes (Num. 18:24; cf. Ezek. 44:30-31). In nonpriestly contexts, Israel could be described as
the Lord's own portion (Deut. 32:9). Ezekiel's references to priestly portions in verse 29 echo
Num. 18:20, 23-24 and Deut. 18:1-2.
29. Everything proscribed See Lev. 27:28:"Of all that anyone owns . . . nothing that
he has proscribed for the LORD may be sold or redeemed; every proscribed thing is totally con-
secrated to the L O R D " [Transl.].
30. Priestly compensations in the first part of this verse echo Num. 18:11-13, 26-29.
thefirst of the yield of your baking Compare Num. 15:20-21: "set aside a loaf as a gift
[to God]" [Transl.].
31. Priests shall not eat See Lev. 22:8. Rashi notes the difference between this prohibi-
tion and the Torah legislation (B. Hagigah 13a). He suggests that one might conclude from our
passage that the Law did not include all Israelites, who might eat anything that died of itself or
was torn by beasts; whereas in fact a general prohibition is articulated in Lev. 7:24. He provides
a different explanation in his Torah commentary. Either way, this rule appears disjunctive in the
present collection of rules. It is contextualized by R. Eliezer of Beaugency, who regards it as
dealing with prohibited priestly gifts. 10
The relationship between the regulations linking thcparashah and the haftarah exemplifies the
process of tradition and change—the need to maintain continuity with the sacred practices of the
past, and the desire to innovate for new times. Ezekiel functions as a new Moses, a spokesman
for God in the specification of proper priestly behavior. 11
In the enumeration of priestly deportment, xhcpamshah opens with a warning to "the priests,
the sons of Aaron" not to defile themselves by contact with the dead of their people—lest they
become profaned thereby, desecrating their holy status. The only exceptions are certain close
blood relations (Lev. 21:1-4). Ezekiel speaks likewise to "the levitical priests, descended from
Zadok" (Ezek. 44:15) and provides the ritual process for the subsequent reincorporation of
priests so defiled (Ezek. 44:25-27).
These restrictions on defilement emphasize the sacred character of the priests. Separated
from the people, the priests have a holy vocation. Their bodies and lives are consecrated to God's
service; hence they are barred from contact with the dead of their fellow creatures. There is thus
a tension between the priests' sacral office and their natural being. According to one ancient
midrashic formulation, their specialness derives from the fact that they serve before God's altar,
coming and going before His Presence (Tanhuma 'Emor 1). The only exception to their break
with society is when the dead are their very own near kin. But since these relations share their
sacred genealogy, such contact is permitted. As the ancient synagogue poet Yannai put it, "The
sorrow of their disaster is his own, / because he is flesh of their flesh" (ta'alat shivram shivro /
tahat ki she'emm she'ero).12 Nevertheless, this defilement temporarily disqualifies the priests from
serving in the Temple.
This paradox of the sacred may be instructive to all those who study Scripture and follow its
sacred path. Inevitable conflicts arise between religious duties and social or familial obligations.
143 HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
Devotion to God may require separation from natural and communal forms that would betray
one's integrity and religious path; at the same time, there are forms of social contact and acts of
care that take precedence over personal practices and considerations. The Sages suggest as much
when they teach that a priest must defile himself in order to dispose of a corpse when he would
be the only one who could perform the task. This act is the central religious obligation to care
for the dead (met mitzvah), and it transcends all other prohibitions (see Tanhuma 'Emor 3). Such
an unequivocal teaching introduces a theological paradigm of priorities: one cannot shirk one's
human responsibilities for the sake of abstract or impersonal religious principles. Unrequited
care for a fellow creature transcends all ritual bounds.
For a discussion of Jeremiah's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology,
see "The Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from Jeremiah's prophecies (listed
in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah focuses on a symbolic action performed by the prophet leremiah, "in the tenth
year of King Zedekiah" (587 B.C.E.), when "the army of the king of Babylon was besieging
lerusalem" (32:1-2). At that time leremiah was confined to a royal compound, charged with
uttering a seditious oracle about the fall of lerusalem and the exile of its king (w. 3-5; cf. 34:
2-5). The purpose of the prophet's action was to dramatize on the eve of the destruction the
future restoration of the nation to its homeland. Accordingly, leremiah's purchase of the field of
his cousin Hanamel (ler. 32:9-12) was written down and stored against the future time when
"houses, fields, and vineyards shall again be purchased in this land" (v. 15). The legal proceedings
are followed by a prayer in which the prophet struggles to comprehend the drama of hope that
he has just performed; God's response addresses his concern. The public action and the private
prayer constitute the two parts of the haftarah.
The symbolic action in part 1 is one of several dramatic performances enacted by leremiah (see
ler. 13:1-11, 12-14; 18:1-11; 19:1-13). Characteristically, such acts are followed by a divine
oracle of clarification. This is the case here as well, since the legal praxis (32:9-12) of redeeming
a kinsman's threatened estate is concluded by an oracle promising the future reclamation of the
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM144
land o f j u d a h (v. 15). In terms of procedure, the account preserves a precious witness to the
technicalities of sale conveyances in ancient Israel. The following features appear to be custom-
ary with respect to the redemption of landed property between kinsmen (called variously the
mishpat ha-ge'ullah, or legal "procedure of redemption," and the mishpat ha-yemshah, or legal
"right of succession" [w. 7-8]). After the legal rights of purchase are acknowledged, the buyer
(1) purchases the land by weighing out the silver (v. 9), (2) writes up the bill of sale, (3) seals it,
(4) has it properly notarized by witnesses, and (5) weighs out the agreed amount of the purchase
on a scale (v. 10). Moreover, (6) the document is sealed with an open portion summarizing the
transaction (v. 11), and (7) the transfer of the deed to the seller is made in public before the
seller and witnesses, as well as other members of the population in attendance (v. 12). Finally,
(8) the deed of purchase is deposited for future reference (v. 14) —in this case as a witness to
the validity of the divine promise of national redemption. 1
The deed is sealed and notarized, and the possibility of future examination or reference leads
to the practice that the deed be both sealed and kept open (Jer. 32:11). This procedure is probably
related to the practice found in documents of the archives in Elephantine (fifth century B.C.E.),
as well as among Judean scrolls of the Bar Kokhba period (second century c . E . ) . In such cases,
the deed was written on two ends of a rolled parchment: one side was sealed up (to prevent
tampering), while the other end was left open for public examination. 2 The storing away of the
deed in a sealed jar prevented its decay. A similar procedure, also related to the fulfillment of a
divine word, is found in Isa. 8:16.
Under normal conditions, lands alienated because of economic duress could be redeemed
and reclaimed prior to the Jubilee year through the intervention of relatives able to pay the
outstanding premium (Lev. 25:25-27). There is thus a strong resemblance between this reap-
propriation of ancestral lands by uncles and cousins (Lev. 25:48-49) and Jeremiah's action with
his cousin Hanamel, as Nahmanides observed long ago. 3 Nevertheless, a significant difference
remains. Jeremiah purchased the property directly from Hanamel, and there is no indication that
the latter's property had otherwise been alienated to a non-kin. To be sure, we are dealing with
a divinely initiated symbolic action and should allow for some leeway in comparing it with the
Pentateuchal law. Nevertheless, it is possible that we do have here a proper redemption—some
kind of a presumptive transaction that gave a near kin the first right of purchase, so that the
property would not be alienated (cf. S. D. Luzzatto on Jer. 32:7, following Kimhi). 4 Whatever
the legalities involved, the main purpose of Jeremiah's action was to dramatize an oracle of divine
promise. This was its symbolic import, and it transcended the legal issues involved.
Jeremiah's subsequent prayer opens with a cry of amazement that glorifies divine power
andjustice (Jer. 32:17-19). The prophet goes on to describe God's greatwonders on behalfof
Israel—from the Exodus to the Settlement (w. 20-23a). But the people's rejection of the Law
inevitably results in their punishment, and the imminent attack at the hands of the Babylonians
is portrayed as the just reward for such disobedience (w. 23b-24). Given this fact, the prophet
must then be astonished at God's word of promise that closes the haftarah (w. 26-27). He is
told that nothing is too wondrous for God. This language echoes Jeremiah's opening words of
divine praise (R. Joseph Kara).
The threefold repetition of the particle hinneh (behold) marks significant shifts of tone in the
unit. The word occurs at the outset of the prayer, as the prophet reflects upon the action he has
just done (Jer. 32:17a). It also dramatizes the transition from the prophet's words of divine praise
to the theme of punishment and requital (v. 24). And finally, it helps inaugurate God's response
to Jeremiah: "Behold [hinneh] I am the L O R D , the God of all flesh. Is anything too wondrous for
Me?" (v. 27). Formulated rhetorically, this query concludes the haftarah on a note of theological
assertion. With ironic concision, God's promise of redemption demands a commitment of faith.
By means of the haftarah, the challenge posed to Jeremiah is extended to all his spiritual heirs.
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 32:8. you have the duty of redemption Since the land had not been alienated
by economic default, R. Joseph Kara explains the legitimacy of Hanamel's words as follows:
145 HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM
"If I [Hanamel] would die without sons, you [leremiah] would be able to be my heir; and if I
were to sell [the property] to another, you would have the legal right to redeem [it] from the
purchaser even if you were not to inherit i t ; . . . as it is written, '[redemption may be performed
by a kinsman, ] or his uncle or his uncle's son' (Lev. 25:48-49)." 5
12.jyave the deed to Baruch Baruch (ben Neriah) serves as leremiah's aide, disciple,
agent, and personal scribe. Note especially his role in leremiah 36. The title barukh ben neriah
ha-sofer (Baruch ben Neriah, the Scribe) occurs on a personal seal from the seventh century B.C.E.
There is every reason to suppose that this refers to leremiah's own scribe.6
kinsman Hebrew dodi:, literally, "my uncle." This formulation contradicts verse 7 (ben
dodi, "cousin"). This is apparently a scribal error, and many commentators correct the phrase to
ben dodi (so, according to the Septuagint). See S.D. Luzzatto.
who were named With many manuscripts and ancient versions; so ancient Near
Eastern practice. Other manuscripts and editions read "who wrote" (i. e., signed their names)
[Transl.].
14. the sealed text and the open one Hebrew he-hatum ve-'et sefer ha-galuy. The precise
nature of this reference is uncertain, and one must try to reconstruct the practice from ancient
custom. Among the Elephantine papyri and the legal documents from the Bar Kokhba period
(Nahal Hever), one side of the text was inscribed and rolled closed, with a portion of the other
side left exposed for purposes of reference.7 In cuneiform tradition, dockets were inserted into
clay envelopes, with a legal summary on the cover.8 It is possible that ler. 32:14 refers to vali-
dating signatures within and without the scrolled document (if so, leremiah would have signed
on the verso after sealing the text). Mishnah Baba Batra 10:1 refers to two types of documents:
"a plain document whose witnesses signed within, and a tied-up one in which they signed on
the back." The first custom is like the Elephantine practice (and a document from 134 B.C.E.
concludes, "This document is plain and they signed within"), 9 whereas ler. 32:14 would be an
early example of the latter.10
15. Houses, fields, and vineyards This chain of elements picks up the theme of rebuild-
ing and replanting found in ler. 31:4-5. As there, the adverb }od (again) is emphasized. In the
present setting, the three elements constitute an eschatological promise. In broadest terms, the
rebuilding and replanting allude to ler. 1:10. More specifically, the cluster is thematically linked
to leremiah's prophetic letter to the exiles of 597 B.C.E. In that document the prophet tells his
compatriots to build, plant, and marry in Babylon—since redemption has not come (ler. 29:5-6;
cf. v. 28). leremiah's statement here counterpoints that letter: the redemption will come, and the
people will again build and plant in their homeland.
17.Ah,Lord GOD\ Hebrew 'ahah (Ah) is used in connection with cries of amazement,
concern, or despair. Compare ler. 1:6 (also Ezek. 4:14; 9:8).
17-23. This liturgy is replete with themes known from the Deuteronomic theological
tradition: Exodus, election, Promised Land, covenant, reward, and punishment (cf. Deut. 6:
20-25; 7:9-16, 19). 11 But the prayer also shows some striking transformations: (1) the phrase
"[Your] outstretched arm" (v. 17) is normally used in an Exodus context, while it appears here
in a cosmological setting; (2) the normal reference to the "signs and marvels" at the Exodus
is expanded here (v. 20) to refer to wonders for all humankind (see next note); and (3), the
traditional attributes of divine mercy and vicarious retribution in verse 18 (cf. Exod. 34:6-7)
are expanded in verse 19 to indicate individual retribution (cf. Deut. 7:9 and the harmonizing
comments ofRashi onv. 18).
18. Ojyreat and mighty God In his prayer, leremiah extols God with two attributes,
"great" (ha-gadol) and "mighty" (ha-gibbor). By contrast, Daniel praises God as "great" and
"awesome" (nora')—and does not use the epithet "mighty" (Dan. 9:4). All three attributes are
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM146
combined in Deut. 10:17, which speaks o f t h e great, the mighty, and the awesome God" (ha-'el
ha-gadol ha-gibbor ve-ha-nom}).
The Rabbis pondered these variations and tried to understand why the full formula enunci-
ated by Moses (in Deut. 10:17) was subsequently changed. Their answer is that Jeremiah and
Daniel wished to ascribe to God only those attributes that they could theologically affirm. In the
context of the national debacle and suffering that they experienced, attributes like "mighty" or
"awesome" were deemed out of place—and omitted. The Rabbis justify these liturgical revisions
by saying that since "God insists on truth, [these pious ones] would not ascribe false things to
Him" (J. Berakhot 7:3;B. Yoma 69b).
According to talmudic tradition, 12 the full formula was restored to the liturgy by the Men of
the Great Assembly.13 It is now recited in the opening paragraph of theAmidah prayer. In other
contexts, it has received midrashic elaborations. Thus, at the conclusion of the NishmatKol Hay
prayer, recited before the Call to Prayer (Barekhu) on Sabbath morning, the triad of attributes
is first stated simply and then elaborated in the following way:
God [ha-'el]: through the power of Your might;^rmt [ha-gadol]: through the glory of
Your Name; mighty \ha-gibbor\-. forever; and awesome [ve-ha-nomthrough Your won-
drous deeds.
20. with lasting effect Literally, "to this day." The text is difficult and disruptive. It is
hard to understand the reference to miracles in the land of Egypt "to this day." NJPS skirts the
difficulty with the phrase, "with lasting effect." This agrees with Kimhi's comment that the phrase
means "to this day \cad ha-yom ha-zeh] they [the miracles] are known among humankind." He
thus aligns the sense of this phrase with the next one ("and won renown in Israel and among
humankind to this very day \ka-yom ha-zeh]").
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D PARASHAH
The legal theme ofland redemption by a near kin is the common element in thcparashah (Lev.
25:25-55) and haftarah (Jer. 32:6-12). The purpose of such a transaction (called^'Wa^, "re-
demption") was to safeguard the preservation of property within family groups (see Nahmanides
on Lev. 25:33). This was especially significant when holdings might be alienated due to personal
duress. According to Pentateuchal legislation, the act ofge'ulah devolved initially upon the
owner himself or a "redeemer" (go'el) who was a near relative (karov) (Lev. 25:25-26, 31). The
same terminology is found in the Book ofRuth (Ruth 3:12; 4:7). However, in that account, it
would appear that when a valid kinsman could not be found, the right of redemption could be
assumed by an unrelated person (Ruth 4:4-10). Such a "transfer" ofge'ulah rights was called
a temumh (Ruth 4:7). In the case of Jeremiah's purchase ofhis cousin's land, there is no such
transfer. Jeremiah has "the right of succession" and "the duty of redemption" (Jer. 32:8; cf. v.
7), and he agrees to buy the property. It appears that this purchase is offered to him before the
land was put up for general sale (see Kimhi and Luzzatto on Jer. 32:7). Such a provision is not
explicitly indicated in the Torah.
The purpose of Jeremiah's purchase is to enact symbolically the reclamation of family lands
after the exile. It thus accentuates the redemptive implications of Lev. 25:25-54, which merely
states that nonredeemed land would be restored to their original owners at the Jubilee. The spe-
cific legal termge'ulah (redemption) takes on spiritually and nationally salvific overtones in the
process. Implied in the figure of Jeremiah's act ofqe'ulah is the promise of God's own restorative
ge'ulah of His people to their homeland.
The redemptive drama inherent in Jeremiah's act is highlighted in an old homiletic com-
ment on thcpamshah. Citing Lev. 25:25, "If your kinsman is in straits and has to sell part ofhis
holding, his nearest redeemer ]go}alo] shall come and redeem what his kinsman has sold," the
Midrash asks: "Who is hisgo'alo [redeemer]?" The question is answered theologically with this
passage from the Book ofjeremiah:
HAFTARAH FOR'AHAREIMOT-KEDOSHIM147
Thus said the L O R D of Hosts: The people oflsrael are oppressed, and so too the people of
Judah; all their captors held them, they refused to let them go. Their Redeemer \go,alam\ is
mighty, His name is LORD of Hosts. He will champion their cause—so as to give rest to the
earth, and unrest to the inhabitants ofBabylon (Jer. 50:33-34). (Tanhuma Be-har 6)
ASHKENAZIM JEREMIAH16:19-17:14
SEPHARDIM JEREMIAH 16:19-17:14
ASHKENAZIM JEREMIAH16:19-17:14
SEPHARDIM JEREMIAH 16:19-17:14
For a discussion of Jeremiah's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology,
see "The Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the comments on the several haftarah readings taken from Jeremiah's prophecies (listed
in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah comprises a series of diverse pieces, spoken by the prophet leremiah in ludah
sometime in the late seventh to early sixth century B.C.E. These include prayers of proclama-
tion and petition, divine indictments and instructions, and maxims of a general and national
character. A recurrent emphasis is the justice of divine punishment and trust in God's protec-
tive and redemptive power. The prophet himself exemplifies such piety by his personal prayers
and acclamations—proclaiming God as his source of strength and healing savior. This liturgical
dimension frames the haftarah (ler. 16:19; 17:14).
Though diverse in style and concern, the haftarah has an identifiable structure. The following
symmetry marks its arrangement: (A) an outer frame (parts 1 and 5) that contains prayers in the
first person, which expresses trust in God; (B) an inner frame (parts 2 and 4) that contrasts the
false altars with the Temple and refers to the people's sin (ler. 17:1, 13); and (C) a centerpiece
(part 3) that juxtaposes self-reliance with trust in God. In addition, there are recurrent theme-
words that integrate the units.
The verbal stem_y-^-f (to know) is found in 16:21 and 17:4, 9; '-s-h (to do) recurs in 16:20
and 17:8, 11; (to write) is emphasized in 17:1 and 13; and s-w-r (to turn) links 17:5 and
13. Similarly, the noun word lev (heart) is the subject of the discourses in 17:1 and 9-10. Such
repetitions weave a thematic texture into the separate sections. No doubt such similarities trig-
gered the linking of the materials by leremiah or his disciples in the first place.
A central image in the haftarah is the tree. Negatively, the verdant trees represent fertility
and other alien practices condemned by the prophet (ler. 17:2), just as the withered shrubs and
bramble convey the fate of those who rely upon human strength and turn away from God (w.
5-6). By contrast, whoever trusts in the Lord will be like a bountiful tree bearing fruit without
fail (w. 7-8). The reader will especially note the contrast between the "verdant tree" (Jetz m'a-na-n)
of false worship (v. 2), which ends in disaster, and the "tree" ('etz) of ever "fresh" (ra'anan) leaves
(v. 8), which represents the faithful and their divine blessing.
The figure of nourished plants recurs elsewhere in Scripture as a metaphor for divine suste-
nance. In Psalm 52, the speaker says that those who do evil court divine disaster and adds that
because they "trust" in their own wealth and well-being they will be uprooted from the land of
the living (Ps. 52:7, 9). By contrast, the psalmist states that he is "like a thriving olive tree in
God's house" and will "trust in the faithfulness of God forever" (v. 10). Similarly in Psalm 92, the
righteous are likened to a flourishing "date-palm . . . planted in the house of the L O R D " (PS. 9 2 :
13-14) —renewing their fruit and sap even in old age. However, the "wicked sprout like grass";
and though they "blossom, it is only that they may be destroyed forever" (v. 8).
These images dramatize the bounty of a divine life, nourished by righteousness and faith.
The same may accrue to a person who lives a life devoted to Torah and its study, as Psalm I
counsels. Indeed, this prayer provides a striking counterpoint to the words of leremiah. Whereas
the prophet speaks entirely of trust as the key virtue of a divinely blessed life and its capacity to
transform its bearer into"a tree planted by waters . . . [which] does not cease to yield fruit" (ler.
17:8), the speaker of the psalm praises the Law and proclaims that only one who studies con-
stantly in delight and devotion will be "like a tree planted beside streams of water, which yields
its fruit in season, whose foliage never fades, and whatever it produces thrives" (Ps. 1:3). Those
who follow such a path shall thus stand firm, unlike the wicked who "are like the chaff that the
wind blows away" (Ps. 1:4) — scattered and dry, without any yield or bounty.
Ancient Israelite theologians thus pondered the way a life of piety could transform the
individual and exalt different virtues as beneficial. For some, it is through the power of study
that one is blessed; for others, like leremiah, it is the power of trust in God that transforms the
spirit and generates a life of ever-new bounty. Notably, both images emphasize the capacity of
this devoted individual to overcome the destructive forces of life. They neither fade nor wither
against the harsh blasts of the world, but withstand oppression by being rooted in divine reality.
Accordingly, leremiah's teaching of trust in God is a counsel to choose the "the Fount of living
waters" (ler. 17:13) for the sake of such God-given reliance. All else is folly and self-delusion—a
deceptive blindness to the true source oflife.
C O M M E N T S
Jeremiah 16:19-21. The sequence is difficult. leremiah's personal prayer continues with
an assertion of a universal conversion (through rejection of idolatry) (v. 19), and this unit is fol-
lowed by a divine assertion ("Assuredly" [lakhen]) to manifest His power in a momentous way (v.
149 HAFTARAH FOR BE-HAR-BE-HUKKOTAI 149
21). If verse 20 continues the people's confession, the divine oath would be a positive expression
of divine redemption (Abravanel). This interpretation must disregard the fact that the divine
speech begins with the particle lakhen, which normally precedes a conclusion ("therefore").
Accordingly, it seems best to regard the people's confession as limited to verse 19b and regard
verse 20 as the divine arraignment that precedes judgment (cf. Targum Jonathan and Kimhi). Oddly,
however, the divine arraignment and judgment follow the people's confession. One must therefore
assume that what Jeremiah affirms for the future (the conversion of the pagans) God now confirms,
announcing a manifestation of might that will induce the peoples to know Him (v. 21b).
Jeremiah's prayer for the conversion of the nations to the God of Israel anticipates later ap-
peals (Isa. 45:22) andprophecies (Zech. 8:20-23).
19. OLORD .. . my stronghold This expression builds on formulas of trust in the protecti-
ve power of God (Nah. 1:7; Ps. 27:1). The underlying metaphor here is based on the bastions
that served as a place of refuge (cf. Isa. 17:9). This accounts for the use of the term manusi ("my
refuge"), presumably derived from the verb n-w-s, "to run" (Dunash ibn Labrat; cf. Rashi). It
thus evokes a sense of sanctuary, insofar as just this verb is used in connection with the right of
an accidental manslayer to flee to the protective custody of a city of refuge (Num. 35:6; Deut.
4:42).
20. No-gods are they This phrase is preceded by a (rhetorical) question asserting the
futility of idolatry. In form and substance it echoes Jer. 2:11—albeit ironically, since it was used
earlier as a mocking jibe at Israel's lapse of faith. There are other parallels between Jeremiah 2 and
the haftarah. God is called a "Fount of living waters" in 2:13 and 17:13; Israel is said to become
a booty for the nations in 2:14 and 17:3; and Jer. 2:20-21 speaks of sinful worship under leafy
trees, as does the judgment in 17:2. The opprobrium "no-god" has polemical force (Deut. 32:
17, 21) and is often used to signal covenantal rejection (Deut. 32:21; Hos. 1:9).
21.1 will teach them Or, "inform them"; Hebrew }odi'em. The prophet seems to refer
to a forthcoming arraignment of the nations. For this forensic sense of the verb, see Ezek. 22:
2. 1 Critique of the nations for idolatry is unusual in preexilic sources; Jeremiah is the first to
enunciate this view (cf. Jer. 10:11; 5o: 35-39). 2 By contrast, the Torah never condemns the
nations for such worship—only for moral perversions such as child sacrifice (Deut. 12:29-31).
Deuteronomy 4:19 even presents the worship of the sun, the moon, and the stars as the divine
fate of all nations except Israel. Compare Amos 1.
Jeremiah 17:1. Theguilt ofjudah... on the horns oftheir altars Hebrew hatta't Tehudah.
Normally, the purging blood of the guilt offering (hatta't) was put on the horns of the altar. This
was done in order to purify the shrine (Lev. 8:15; cf. M. Shevu'ot 1:4-7). It was also performed
in cases of accidental sin by the individual (Lev. 4:25, 30). Jeremiah thus mocks Israel's practices
by punning on the noun hatta't. It is their guilt, he implies, that is on their altars, and not the
blood of the expunging sacrifice.3 The inscription of this guilt on "the tablet of their hearts" (Jer.
17:1) anticipates the prophecy of God's Torah to be written there in the future (Jer. 31:33).
Engraved Hebrew harushah. The stem h-r-sh is dialectically related to h-r-t (cf. Exod.
32:16). In Hebrew and Aramaic, the letters t andsh are variants. Compare Biblical sh-n-n (teach)
and Aramaic t-n-n (learn); or the rabbinic variant mishnah/matnita:'.
3-4. This doom formulation resembles Jer. 15:13-14 in many respects. These passages
have often been compared, and some have emended the difficult phrase bamotekha be-hata't (be-
cause of the sin of your shrines) in 17:3 in light of the clearer variant in 15:13 (vi-mhir u-v-khol
hat'otekha, "free of charge, because of all your sins").4 This is not necessary, as the formulation
in 17:3 has been adapted to refer to the cultic sins on the "lofty hills" mentioned in 17:2. This
inner-textual component also accounts for the odd syntax. Targum Jonathan correctly construes
the phrase by inverting the terms, as if it read be-hata't bamotekha (because of the sin of your
shrines). NJPS has followed this tradition of interpretation.
C O N N E C T I O N S BETWEEN T H E H A F T A R A H A N D PARASHAH
Theparashah concludes the Book of Leviticus with a series of blessings and curses that may befall
a worshiper, depending upon obedience or disobedience to God and His covenant (Lev. 26:
3, 14-15). These rewards and punishments are set forth in detail and correspond to the central
image of the haftarah: blessings for those who trust in God, and curses for those who spurn His
ways (ler. 17:5-8).
Several verbal links reinforce this thematic correlation. On the positive side, leremiah states that
the blessed person who "trusts" (yivtah) in the Lord will be like a well-planted "tree," which
"send[s] forth its roots by a stream \yuvat\" and "does not cease to yield fruit [^m]" (ler. 17:8).
This image of earthly beneficence reinforces the promise in theparashah that the faithful will live
in a fertile land—a land that will yield its "produce" (yevulah) and its "trees" their "fruit" (piryo),
and one in which its inhabitants may dwell "securely" (la-vetah) (Lev. 26:4-5).
On the other hand, leremiah fulminates against the cultic travesties practiced by the people of
ludah with their "altars and sacred posts, by verdant trees, [and] upon lofty hills" (ler. 17:2). This
condemnation refers to the practice of nature or fertility worship, long condemned as a feature of
Canaanite religion. It is repeatedly mentioned in the Torah as a seduction awaiting the people in
the Promised Land. Hence, xhepamshah virulently outlaws such behavior and announces God's
doom against the disobedient people's "cult places" and "incense stands" (Lev. 26:30).
ASHKENAZIM HOSEA2:l-22
SEPHARDIM HOSEA 2:1-22
For the life and times of Hosea and a consideration of his prophetic message and theology, see
"The Book of Hosea" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the remarks on the other haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of
Biblical Passages").
The haftarah opens with a dramatic prophecy of renewal and blessing for the people of
Israel (Hos. 2:1-3). The rejected nation (called lo} 'ammi, "Not-My-People") shall be called
"Children-of-the-Living-God," and the inhabitants of the southern region of Judah shall be
joined with the northern population of Israel as one community. This restoration reverses the
rejection proclaimed against the nation for their religious apostasy (Hos. 1:2-8). The process
of reconciliation is dramatized in a succession of scenes of divine reproof and solicitation (Hos.
2:4-19). The culmination is a renewal of the covenant and a declaration of vows (w. 20-21).
By this means, Israel is espoused to God forever—along with her children (called 'ammi, "My
People," and ruhamah, "LovinglyAccepted" [w. 3, 25]).
According to the superscription (Hos. 1:1), Hosea prophesied during the reign of the Israelite
king Jeroboam II (784-748 B.C.E.). This is said to correspond to the reigns of the Judean mo-
narchs Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (769-698 B.C.E.). If the prophet began to prophesy
toward the end of the reigns of Jeroboam II and Uzziah, his prophecies of doom would coincide
with the advent of the Assyrian empire—and its growing power in the west. Assyria invaded
Israel first in 733, and then in 722 B.C.E., when it sent the ten northern tribes into exile. Looking
beyond this destruction, Hosea envisions a national renewal in the future.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The three parts of the haftarah incorporate the judgment and doom to befall Israel into a larger
framework of physical and spiritual restoration. Hope is proclaimed from the very outset, thus
indicating that divine mercy transcends judgment for sin. False knowledge will be converted to
renewed devotion. The people forgot the Lord and sought other gods, thinking that these deities
would provide for their needs (Hos. 2:7). Little did they know or "consider" {yade'ah) that all
sustenance comes from the Lord (Hos. 2:10). In the end, this transformed perspective will win the
day, and the people shall know the Lord and be "devoted" (ve-yada'at) to His service (v. 22). 1
The prophet marks these shifts of attitude by symbolic changes of name. The people named
"Not-My-People" (lo} 'ammi [Hos. 2:1 and 1:9]) and "Not-Accepted" (lo} mhamah [1:6]) at the
outset, to indicate their rejection by God, will in the end be called "My People" ('ammi) and "Lov-
ingly Accepted" (mhamah) (Hos. 2:3; cf. v. 25)—and collectively" Children-of-the-Living-God"
(benei }el hay 2:1])—in token of their reconciliation with God. Correspondingly, God will also be
renamed. No longer will the people call Him Baali, but rathier Ishi, "My Husband" (v. 18).
These shifts of status are underscored by different uses of the particle lo} (not)—or by its
strategic absence. Thus, the rejected people called "Not-My-People" (lo} 'ammi) shall be accepted
as "My People" ('ammi), the removal of the negative functioning as the symbolic cancellation
of the nation's rejection by God. Correspondingly, God's shift from rejection of the nation to
its espousal is marked by the transformation of an old formula of divorce. At first proclaiming
through His children that their mother "is not [/o^] My wife and I am not her husband [lo} }ish-
ah]" (Hos. 2:4), God subsequently reverses the procedure when He says that in the future the
people shall call Him "My Husband" (v. 18). Clearly this title is more than a preferred name.
Since God does not invite the people to call Him by His holy name YHWH, one may assume
that the designation Ishi has been introduced to counterpoint the initial formula of rejection (lo}
'ish-ah) and thus indicate the new "marital status" oflsrael. Significantly, the promise that Israel
shall call God "My Husband" is followed by His declaration of covenantal espousals—thereby
sealing the restored relationship with the people.
A third example of the strategic use of lo} takes us to the theological core of the haftarah.
God initially hoped to bring Israel back from her wayward path by frustrating the people's acts
of apostasy—hedging her roads with thorns—so that she would become frustrated with her new
lovers and "return" to her "first husband" (Hos. 2:8-9). But this did not happen, and she "did
not consider" or know (lo}yade'ah) that it was God "who bestowed on her the new grain and
wine and oil," not to mention the silver and gold that she used to decorate the Baalim (v. 10).
Israel's apostasy is thus portrayed as rooted in a false knowledge of divine beneficence. Since
this has led her astray, a reversal of this condition is necessary. Concluding the series of espousals,
God proclaims that through His commitment to justice and mercy and steadfastness the nation shall
"know [ve-yada^at]" (NIPS: "be devoted to") the Lord (Hos. 2:22). Nevermore shall they falsely
attribute the bounty of the earth to the Baalim but shall know that its true source is God alone.2
Hosea is the first of the prophets to portray the covenant between God and Israel as a mar-
riage. After him, leremiah (2-3) and Ezekiel (16 and 23) make strong uses of the motif—both
C O M M E N T S
Hosea 2:1-3. This section anticipates the redemptive conclusion (w. 16-20) and inter-
venes between the two negative judgments against Israel (1:2-8 and 2:3-15). For this reason,
many moderns suggest that Hos. 2:1-3 originally occurred at the end of the prophecy, along with
the other references to a positive renaming of the nation in verse 25. This is hard to substantiate,
and the sequence of prophecies remains difficult. The units oscillate between doom and redemp-
tion; their chronology is confusing.
A further complication lies in the two occurrences of the motif of whoredom and children of
whoredom. In chapter 1, the wife symbolizes the Land of Israel and the children the northern
tribes. By contrast, in chapter 2, the wife is wayward Israel (the national collectivity), and the
children are embodiments of the people that are appealed to for spiritual renewal. The haftarah
only presents the second pattern and thus also omits God's opening command that Hosea take
a woman of whoredom to wife (1:2). Since the latter initiates an allegorical drama in which the
prophet represents God—who is betrayed by infidelity—the absence of this command in our
haftarah produces a different effect. The opening divine promise (2:1-3) now continues with
God's words to the people (the children) regarding the nation as a whole (the wife). The people's
betrayal of their covenantal bond thus occurs within the context of love; and the images of a
faithless mother and her children function as a rhetorical figure of rejection and judgment.
1. The number... like that ofthe sands ofthe sea This image recalls the promise to
Abraham (Gen. 15:5), and variations recur in other patriarchal blessings (Gen. 22:17; 32:
13). The sharp juxtaposition of this promise with the preceding words of doom introduces the
theme of divine mercy and restoration from the outset. OJPS provides a transition through the
translation "Yet the number . . .." NJPS captures the unqualified promise, which works best for
the haftarah that begins with this verse.
instead of Hebrew bi-mkom, like tahat 'asher (Ibn Ezra; Kimhi). The Targum renders
"from the place" (viz., exile), reading (exegetically?) ba-makom. Compare also R. Eliezer of
Beaugency.5
YouareNot-My-People See H o s . l : 9 [Transl.].
Children-of-the-Living-God This positive designation has no negative correlate in the
previous chapter (unlike the others). The epithet }el hay, "Living God" is unusual, though not
unknown (Josh. 3:10; Pss. 42:3 and 84:3). For the form 'elohim hayyim ("Living God"; the
inclusive plural of majesty), see Deut. 5:23, 1 Sam. 17:26, and 2 Kings 19:4.
2. "head Hebrew ro'sh, used as a leader also in xhcpamshah, Num. 1:4, as well as Num.
14:4 and Judg. 11:8 (NJPS: "commander"). The passage was interpreted as messianic by me-
dieval commentators (Rashi; Kimhi).
they shall risefrom theground Meaning, perhaps, "from their wretched condition," or
"to ascendancy over the land" [Transl.]. The image seems to point to rejuvenation of the national
condition, particularly through a rise in population. This is apparently the issue behind the same
idiom in Exod. 1:10.
155 HAFTARAH FOR B E - H A ' A L O T E K H A
the day of Jezreel That is, the day when the name "Jezreel" will convey a promise (2:
23-25) instead of a threat (1:4-5) [Transl.].
3. call The Lord addresses Hosea and his fellow North Israelites; see 1:9. The mother
is the nation; her children the individual North Israelites [Transl.].
4. Rebuke your mother God addresses members of the nation (the children) to rebuke
or contend with the mother Israel as a people for her harlotrous ways (Kimhi). The language
of "rebuke" (riv) introduces a forensic dimension and charges the people with abandonment of
God. 6 This accounts for the formula of divorce ("she is not My wife and I am not her husband"),
the threat of stripping and punishment, and the citation of the mother's own words as self-in-
criminating evidence and proof of infidelity (w. 4-7). Verse 4 strongly suggests divine rejection;
reconciliation follows later, as the ultimate goal of the accusation process.7
In other sources, the issue of divorce and remarriage after the wife's intervening wedlock
with another is posed as a legal problem (Jer. 3:1; cf. Deut. 24:1-4). The matter serves as a foil
to emphasize divine mercy and reconciliation (Jer. 3:4). 8 The whole notion of God's divorce of
Israel is bluntly rejected in Isa. 51:1. Nevertheless, the legal matter nettled later commentators.
One solution was to invoke older rabbinic precedents that a writ of divorce would be canceled
if the parties reconciled prior to its deliverance (see Rashi).
Various prophets utter a divine riv against the nation and juxtapose the beneficence of God
with human failings. Compare Jer. 2:4-9 + 10-37, with its charges, citations, evidence, and
threats. The punishment of stripping and shaming is a feature of the motif in various passages
(see v. 12; also Ezek. 16:36-39). These elements may have been part of common law or practice
in ancient Israel. Evidence for such behaviors is found in Mesopotamian legal sources.9
she is notMy -wife /Andl am not her husband The guilt of the wife is juridically em-
phasized by this divorce formula. The second part of the repudiation, "I am not her husband"
(Hebrew ve-'anokhi lo} }ish-ah), recalls the old Jewish divorce formulary "I am not your husband"
('eini ishekh) rejected by later halakhah (B. Kiddushin 5b; cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah,
Hilkhot Ishut 3:1 and Hilkhot Gerushin 1:4). This language of repudiation recalls the positive
marriage formula "I am her husband and she is my wife" known from early Jewish legal practice,
preserved in the Aramaic papyri found at Elephantine, Egypt, 10 and elsewhere.11 Such formulas
were replaced in traditional Jewish practice by another model ("You are consecrated to me . . .
according to the laws of Moses and Israel").
Likewise, the divine repudiation formula in Hos. 1:9, "I will not be your [God]," is a striking
reversal of the opening line of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:2), as well as such covenantal assertions
as "I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God" (Exod. 6:7; cf. Lev. 26:45; Deut.
26:17-18). The prophet thus utilizes diverse legal formulas in his rhetoric, dramatizing the
divine-human relationship in concrete and realistic ways.
5. naked ...ason the day she was born Presumably, in Egypt; compare Targum, Rashi,
and Ibn Ezra. The topic is developed as a motif of divine care in Ezek. 16:7 and 22.
7. Because she thought Literally, "for she said" (OJPS); Hebrew ki }amrah. This is an
expression of self-incrimination; see also in verse 14.
9. seek them... neverfind them Hosea uses the verbs bikkesh (seek) and matza} (find)
to stress the failure of the pursuit of false gods. Elsewhere this pattern is used positively, in order
to emphasize God's readiness to respond to Israelite entreaty. Compare Deut. 4:29 andjer. 29:
13. In Isa. 65:1, God says that He will be present (lit., "found") even though He was not sought
out. The verbal pattern was also used to express search for a beloved person; see Song of Songs
3:1-2 and 5:6.
CC
I -mllgo and 'return to myjirst husband" This suggests an intervening second marriage
and divorce (initiated by the woman). Such remarriage was illegal according to Deuteronomic
law (Deut. 24:1-4). The present situation is not a court case but uses legal features as rhetorical
HAFTARAH FORB E - H A ' A L O T E K H A156
tropes for the purpose of dramatizing Israel's relationship with God. 12 The topic also occurs in
ler. 3:1, again to highlight divine rejection and reconciliation.13
lO.Andgold—which they usedfor Baal Israel misuses the bounty of God for idolatrous
rites. Such and other acts of ungrateful apostasy are depicted in full detail in Ezek. 16:16-22. In
a later rebuke, Hosea repeats the matter: "Of their silver and gold they have made themselves
images, to their own undoing" (8:4).
11.1 -will take back ttebrewve-hitzalti. For this meaning with respect to goods, compare
Ibn Ezra on this verse and on Gen. 31:9. The same verb (in thepi'el form) is used to indicate
the dispossession of the Egyptians (Exod. 3:22; 12:36).
14. afee For harlotry. Hebrew'etnah; this term is like the \tnan paid to a harlot (Hos.
9:1 and Deut. 23:19; cf. Ibn Ezra, following Ibn lanah). The word for a harlot's fee etnah)
puns on the payment itself (te'enatah, "her fig trees" [v. 14]), 14 and it alludes to terminology for
sexual "passion" (ta'anatah), also used in polemics mocking Israel's whoring after false gods (ler.
2:24). Harlot's hire "given" to paramours is mentioned also in Ezek. 16:26 and 33. 15
15. days ofthe Baalim Baalim used in the plural here and in verse 19, presumably to
correspond to the many "lovers" (cf. 2:7, 9, 12, 14). Baal was the Canaanite god of the storm
and fertility. His name is used as a collective noun in ludg. 2:11 and 8:33 and with the feminine
Ashtaroth in ludg. 10:6. Among different regional Baal cults, note the references to the Baal of
Hermon (ludg. 3:3) and of Samaria (1 Kings 16:32); also mentioned are the cult ofBaal-peor
(Num. 25:3; Hos. 9:10) andofBaal-zebub ofEkron (2 Kings 1:2).
16. through the -wilderness Or, "into the desert." The image has been interpreted as a
metaphor for the exile (Rashi; Kimhi; Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency) or the devastated homeland
(Ibn Ezra), where God will comfort the nation and begin the process of renewal. Alternatively,
the desert/wilderness is a figure for the revelation of God (cf. Hos. 13:5) and the place where
Israel demonstrated its ancient faithfulness to Him (ler. 2:2). Hosea may therefore use the theme
of the desert typologically, in order to represent these ancient events anew—even as he uses the
topic of the Valley of Achor (Hos. 2:17) to represent the entrance into the Land, and the theme
of espousals (w. 21-22) to recall the covenant at Sinai (see below). 16 From this perspective, the
prophecies of hope project a renewal of sacred history. In fact, the prophet explicitly speaks of
Israel's response to God with reference to "the days of her youth, when she came up from the
land of Egypt" (v. 17).
17. her vineyards The image is used here to depict the Land as a whole; in Isa. 5 :l-7,
it functions as a metaphor for the people of Israel. The restored vineyards counterpoint the de-
struction of the vines in verse 14 (Ibn Ezra; Kimhi); similarly, the covenant with the beasts of
the field (v. 20) counterpoints their former rapacity (v. 14).
the Valley ofAchor A desolate region; compare Isa. 65:10 and losh. 7:25-26 [Transl.].
This may refer to the scene of Achan's sin at the beginning of the conquest (losh. 7:24-26)
(Kimhi). That ancient site of infidelity will now become a gateway of renewal. According to 1
Chron. 2:7, Achan is called Achar. Alternatively, the phrase is simply a metaphor marking the
ancient entrance into the Land in terms of a "Valley of Trouble" and counterpoints it with the
promise that the people will reenter the Land through a "Gate of Hope" (Rashi).
18. Ishi This is the term for "husband," used figuratively for God already in verse 9 and
as part of the divorce formula in verse 4. In this context it counterpoints the term Baali, "My
Baal." Such a designation for a husband evokes the Canaanite god of that name, with whom the
people sinned—hence it is rejected. Theologically, the fact that God says that the people have
called Him Baali reinforces the category mistake with which he charged them earlier. The people
thought that they should turn to the Baalim for food and sustenance, not knowing that all this
truly came from YHWH alone (v. 10).
The parashah speaks of a census of the Israelite nation at the beginning of the second month
of the second year after the Exodus (Num. 1:1). This reckoning (mispar shemot [1:2]) follows
the erection of the Tabernacle a month earlier (Exod. 40:17) and precedes the actual trek in the
wilderness by three weeks (Num. 10:11). Following the covenant and the apostasy of the Golden
Calf, this wandering with the Ark could thus be perceived as a time of purification prior to the
nation's entrance into the Land (Maimonides, Guidefor thePerplexed 3:24). The desert (midbar)
serves a similar function in the haftarah. Speaking of a subsequent time, the prophet Hosea first
shows how the seductions of idolatry have (again) perverted Israel's worship and deformed its
religious consciousness. He then portrays how reconciliation will come about through God's
tender speech to the people in the "wilderness" (midbar [Hos. 2:16]). This act would inaugurate
the restoration of the nation to their homeland—regenerated beyond all counting (lo} yissafer
me-rov [Hos. 2:1]).
The desert thus serves as a physical realm marking the transformation of the nation from
bondage to freedom and a symbolic realm marking this same passage as a spiritual journey of
rebirth. In both cases, the desert has a paradigmatic status in the life of the nation, marking
change, transition, and new beginnings. By contrast, centuries of Jewish exile and wandering
have brought darker aspects of the symbol of the desert to consciousness. For these readers, the
desert was perceived as a wasteland and connoted a space of emptiness and suffering. Hence, the
Hosean passage repeatedly served its readers as a prophecy of redemption from the dislocations
of exile (see Kimhi). Such readers could thus look to Zion as the "Door of Hope" (petah tikvah
[Hos. 2:7]) at the edge of the desert—the long-awaited passageway from physical suffering to
spiritual renewal.
For a discussion of the Book of Judges and an overall consideration of its historiography, theology,
and literary form, see "The Book of Judges" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)158
Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other passages from the Book of Judges recited as haftarah
selections, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah begins a cycle of stories associated with Samson (ludges 13-16). The narra-
tive opens with an announcement of the hero's birth to a Danite family living near Zorah (in
the southern coastal plain) and concludes with a report of his burial in his father's tomb in the
same region. Between these events, Samson raises havoc among the Philistines and dies in a
fit of revenge against them. The annunciation prophesies that "he shall be the first to deliver
Israel from the Philistines" (ludg. 13:5). In this respect, his travail anticipates the battles waged
against the Philistines into the early days of the monarchy—battles that lead to the death of Saul
and the ultimate glory ofDavid. Moreover, beginning with Samson, accounts of battle against
the Philistines tell of wondrous deeds of derring-do: Samson himself kills a thousand men with
the jawbone of an ass (ludg. 15:15-16) and even single-handedly brings the temple of Dagon
down on some three thousand others (16:25-30); David slays the Philistine hero Goliath in
solo combat with a slingshot and pebbles (1 Samuel 17); and in a further act of prowess, Da-
vid's nephew lonathan kills another Philistine "giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand
and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all" (2 Sam. 21:20). Nevertheless, a difference must
be noted. Samson's acts are hot-tempered acts of revenge and not motivated by the needs of his
tribe, national honor, or peace. Accounts of his brutish bravado and lust are preserved in stylized
patterns and sequences, evoking pathos and humor. 1
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)160
through a verbatim reference to the liquids forbidden a nazirite suggest that the writer of 1 Samuel
1 has utilized features of the naziritic law in order to dramatize the pathos of the scene. As in the
Samson cycle, the language of the rule reverberates thematically throughout the narrative. 9
The repetition of episodes and the use of words previously spoken give Judg. 13:2-25 an
epic or at least folktale-like quality. As part of this aural effect, verbal puns play a significant role.
The conclusion to the scene of the angel's appearance is exemplary (13:18-20). In response to
Manoah's request for his name, the divine being demurs and says that "it is unknowable" {peli,)\
but as Manoah proceeds to give a meal offering to the Lord, "a marvelous \maphliy\ thing hap-
pened": the flames ascend the altar toward the sky, and the divine being ascends in the fire. Manoah
and his wife looked on in amazement and "flung themselves \va-yippelu\ on their faces to the
ground." The verbal echoes thus underscore the transcendent and mundane dimensions of the
episode—the spectacular and wondrous nature of the visitation and the all-too-human response
of fear. Given these echoes, it is possible that the word maphli} also alludes to the Pentateuchal
law in Num. 6:2—where the rule of the nazirite opens with the words: "If anyone, man or
woman, explicitly \yaphliy\ utters a nazirite's vow, to set himself apart for the Lord." 10 Through
such verbal plays, the folk narrative is bound to ancient Pentateuchal law.11
COMMENTS
Judges 13 \2. ofthe stock of Dan This notice reflects the early area of settlement of the Danites
along the southwest coast, near Philistine territories. The same location may also be reflected in
ludg. 5:17. However, the Danites had difficulty securing land on the maritime plain and were
driven back into the highlands by the Amorites (ludg. 1:34). Near the end of the period of the
chieftains ("ludges"), much of the tribe settled in the northeastern area of the western tribes
(ludges 18). They overran the city ofLaish (ludg. 18:27), also known as Leshem (losh. 19:47),
and gave it the tribal name Dan. This new location is reflected in Deut. 33:22.
3. angel Etymologically, Hebrew mal'akh (angel) means "messenger." This designation
is also used by the narrator in verses 13, 15-18, and 20-21. The wife ofManoah later tells her
husband that "a man of God Lish ha-'elohim] came to me; he looked like an angel of God" (v.
6); and thus Manoah himself uses the expression "man of God" when praying to the Lord for a
new manifestation (v. 8). Because the being had a human appearance, "Manoah did not know
that he was an angel of the LORD" (v. 16). Manoah requests a repeat performance in order to
verify that the oracle is of divine origin.
The belief in divine messengers taking human form accounts for the varied terminology.
Thus of the three "men" who announce Isaac's birth to Abraham (Gen. 18:2, 16), the two who
appear before Lot in Sodom are also called "angels" (19:1). Similarly, the divine being with
whom lacob wrestles is called a "man" ('ish) in Gen. 32:25, but the prophet Hosea recalls him
as an "angel" (mal'akh [Hos. 12:5]).
7. eat nothing -unclean The prohibition against eating anything "unclean" (tame1'; called
tum'ah in w. 7, 14) is not precise. The phrase may either extend the primary prohibition against
intoxicants to include other ritually unclean food or drink or serve to embrace all other things
that the Torah (in Num. 6:2-3) prohibits the nazirite to ingest (see Kimhi). Significantly, the
instruction is given to the mother who shall conceive and bear the nazirite. The concern is pre-
sumably to prevent his desacralization in utero.
18. unknowable Manoah is refused his request to learn the angel's name and told that it
is beyond his comprehension. The sense of "unknowable" forpelP follows Kimhi (who expands
upon the Targum). In other contexts, the noun has a similar sense. Thus Moses tells the people
that the divine "Instruction" he has articulated is "not too baffling [niphPet]" for them (Deut.
30:11), and lob humbly repents before God at the conclusion ofhis protests and acknowledges
that he "spoke without understanding of things beyond [niphla'ot] me" (lob 42:3). The denial
of a divine name recalls the encounter between lacob and an angel at the labbok ford. Indeed,
161 HAFTARAH FOR SHELAH-LEKHA
the denial is formulated with precisely the same words ("you must not ask for my name") as
foundhere (v. 18; cf. Gen. 32:30). 12
25. between Zorah and Eshtaol The place name Zorah is also mentioned at the outset of
the narrative (v. 2). The cities of Zorah and Eshtaol are again recorded in the last line of the cycle,
marking the location of Samson's burial "in the tomb ofhis father Manoah" (Judg. 16:31).
The haftarah andpamshah bring together two biblical traditions about the nazirite. The Penta-
teuchal rule in Numbers 6 formally delineates the situation for one (male or female) who enters
the consecrated status of a nazirite through a vow, the ritual requirements pertaining to that
condition, and the ritual process of laicization—whether by (accidental or intentional) desanc-
tification through forbidden acts or by the successful fulfillment of the term enunciated in the
vow. Nothing is stated in the Torah about lifelong vows, vows affecting others (including unborn
children), vows conditional upon the realization of specific happenings, or even the nullification
of such a vow (along the lines exemplified by Numbers 30).
These silences ring loud and clear when the Pentateuchal rule is compared with Judges 13 and
1 Samuel 1—texts that deal with the lifelong consecration of Samson and Samuel, respectively.
In particular, the haftarah presents a popular narrative of a person consecrated from concep-
tion to be a nazirite for life. Remarkably, even the mother is bidden to observe some of the
prescriptions (abstention from intoxicants) ritually incumbent upon a nazirite-to-be during her
pregnancy. Moreover, the mother has not entered this state through her own personal vow. The
narrative case of Samson suggests that in some Israelite circles a woman could consecrate her
unborn child to God either in obedience to a higher authority or of her own will. In any event,
Samson's ritual status makes him a vessel for the divine spirit that infuses him and inaugurates
his mission (Judg. 13:25). In a comparable way, Jeremiah is designated by God to be a prophet
from the womb and is fully consecrated to this status by the touch of God and the divine words
put into his mouth (Jer. 1:4-9).
Viewed instructional^, xhepamshah and haftarah juxtapose two types of action and devotion:
the one is marked by the willful decision to abstain from intoxicants and impurities, and thus
approximate priestly sanctity (cf. Sifre Num. Naso' 26); the other embodies the will-less force of
destiny, which is equally imbued with private and petulant passions. For the former, devotion to
God is expressed through self-limitation and restraint (perhaps even to rebalance one's spiritual
life; Maimonides,.M«^w^ Torah, Hilkhot De'ot 3:1); whereas for individuals like Samson, the
imposition of a sacred status infuses the self with powers that transcend ordinary limits. Accord-
ingly, whereas the ritual nazirite knowingly and deliberately serves God, and does so through a
private act that must be sustained and kept in mind for a set period, a devotee like Samson does
not choose his status and devotes his transformed and consecrated condition to self-centered and
isolated acts of revenge. Theparashah thus shows how a layperson may become (for a time) fully
consecrated "to the LORD" (Num. 6 : 1 2 ) and serve as a model of devotion and self-limitation. In
contradistinction, the haftarah describes a person overwhelmed by a lifelong supernatural energy.
Only derivatively and accidentally do his passions benefit others.
ASHKENAZIM ZECHARIAH2:14-4:7
SEPHARDIM ZECHARIAH 2:14-4:7
For Zechariah's life and message and a discussion of the Book of Zechariah as a whole, see "The
Book of Zechariah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also
HAFTARAH FOR BE-HA'ALOTEKHA 162
the detailed discussion of the other haftarah taken from Zechariah's prophecies (listed in "Index
of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah is taken from the first part of the Book of Zechariah (chapters 1-8), which
anticipates God's return to Zion and the renewal of the Temple service. According to the
superscription, Zechariah's prophecies begin in the second regnal year of Darius I of Persia
(520 B.C.E.), in the eighth month of that year (October). This king continued the foreign
policy of Cyrus who, shortly after his conquest ofBabylon, issued an edict (in 538 B.C.E.)
permitting the ludeans to return to their homeland and restore their ancient religious
practices. A version of this proclamation is preserved in the Book of Ezra (1:2-4), along
with an account of how the priestly and royal families of ludah led a group of returnees
back to Zion—building an altar upon their arrival and laying the foundation for a Temple
two years later (Ezra 3).
Work on the new Temple was postponed when the leadership refused to allow the local
population to join in the labor (Ezra 4:1-3), and this group interfered with the building
project down to the second year of Darius I (Ezra 4:4-5, 24). At that time, the prophets
Haggai and Zechariah exhorted the people to resume the building of the Temple (Ezra 5:
1-2). Haggai began to prophesy at the beginning of the sixth month (Elul) ofthat year (29
August 520 B.C.E.; see Hag. 1:1), and Zechariah two months later (in Heshvan; see Zech.
1:1). The refoundation of theTemple occurred soon thereafter, on the twenty-fourth of
the ninth month (Kislev; 18 December 520 B.C.E.; see Hag. 2:20), and the building was
completed in four years, on the third of Adar in the sixth year of Darius's reign (13 March
516 B.C.E.; see Ezra 6:14-15).
The visions and oracles that compose Zechariah 1-8 reflect an intense prophetic activity, lasting
not much more than two years (Zech. 7:1 provides the date of 4 Kislev 518 B.C.E.). Repeatedly,
the prophet vividly testifies to the dawn of a new era: God's reconciliation with Zion and the
land, His forgiveness of sins, and the restoration of priestly and lay leadership in the persons of
loshua ben lehozadak and Zerubbabel ben Shealtiel—heirs of the high priesthood and kingship,
respectively. These topics are featured in the haftarah.
COMMENTS
Zechariah 2:14. and I will dwell in your midst God is aroused to return to Zion from
"His holy habitation" in heaven (v. 17). The language of indwelling (ve-shakhanti be-tokham)
derives from the old Tabernacle traditions (Exod. 25:8) and is used to express God's dwelling
in the Temple of Solomon (1 Kings 6:13) and the return of God to the postexilic Temple by
Ezekiel (Ezek. 43:9). Other prophets and psalmists also use this expression to convey the pres-
ence of God in His earthly habitation (Isa. 8:18; loel 4:17; Ps. 135:21). In the Deuteronomic
tradition, the verb shakhan (dwell) is used to express the indwelling of God's name, not His
divine being (cf. Deut. 12:11; 14:2s). 11 Two distinct theological positions express the nature
of divine immanence: one speaks of God's direct and tangible presence, the other suggests that
this presence is mediated by the divine name.
Thepa-mshah and haftarah give particular attention to the ceremonial object of the menorah and
its lamps. In the Torah, the context is God's word of instruction concerning the kindling of the
lights in the Tabernacle during the wandering and early settlement periods; whereas in Zechari-
ah's prophecy, the imagery is part of a vision of the future Temple and its leaders. Both texts also
deal with the ritual celebrants of the shrine. In xhepa-mshah, the status of the Levites is singled
out, with emphasis placed on their physical purification and the cleanliness of their garments
(Num. 8:7). Their duty to keep God's charge is also stressed (Num. 8:24). Similar concerns and
language are found in the haftarah, which depicts the purification of the high priest Joshua and
his divine charge (Zech. 3:4-6). Sacred space, pure service, and the candelabrum of fiery lights
thus link the shrine of antiquity with the future Temple.
The symbolism of the menorah and lamps in the Torah is not explained there. However, in
the continuation of the vision of Zechariah we learn that the candelabrum came to symbolize
God Himself, and the lights His eyes, roving providentially over the earth (Zech. 4:10b-14). In
subsequent postexilic texts, including Jewish Hellenistic sources and rabbinic Midrash, the lamps
of the menorah also symbolized the seven heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and five visible planets). 30
This gave a more cosmic dimension to divine providence and added a transcendent aspect to the
immanent presence of God—symbolized by the sacred lights in the shrine.
A deeper mystery of God's providence is suggested by a pun perceived by the Sages in the
wordjjullah, the term used in Zechariah's vision to indicate the "bowl" that is ro'shah ("above
it" or "at the head" of the candelabrum; Zech. 4:2). Building on an identification of the menorah
with Israel, one midrash suggested that the wordgullah is an allusion both to the nation's "exile"
(golah) and to its "redemption" (ge'ulah), when God ("at the head") would "be with" His people
for weal and woe. 31 Such a teaching underscores the two poles of Israeli historical fate—and
God's intimate relationship with His people. As many midrashic homilies emphasize, God would
be with His people in exile and in redemption. 32 In the present instance, these matters are fused
in a dense verbal symbol about Israel with God "at its head."
ASHKENAZIM JOSHUA2:l-24
SEPHARDIM JOSHUA 2:1-24
For a discussion of the Book of Joshua and an overall consideration of its historiography, theology,
and literary form, see "The Book of Joshua" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other passages from the Book of Joshua recited as haftarah
selections, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah is taken from the second chapter of the Book of Joshua. In preparation for his
invasion of Canaan, Joshua sends forth two spies to scout the Land. "Go, reconnoiter the re-
gion," he commands, employing a verb that literally means to "see" or "spy out" (re'u) the Land
(Josh. 2:1). This terminology recalls Moses' earlier command to the original twelve spies to go
and "see [u-re}item] what kind of country" they are about to enter (Num. 13:18). The verbal
echo signals to the reader that Joshua's commission is a second attempt to scout the Land, after
HAFTARAH FOR SHELAH-LEKHA 168
the failure of the first venture. Because of their faithlessness, the generation of the desert was
doomed—and denied access to the Promised Land. 1 Joshua now renews the project initiated by
Moses years earlier.
COMMENTS
Joshua 2:1. the house of a harlot Since antiquity, Jewish tradition has softened the image
by interpreting the word zonah here as an "innkeeper," that is, one who "provides food" (zun)
(cf. Targum, Rashi, Kimhi). There is no reason to doubt the original ascription of harlotry. It
provides an ironic element in the narrative of salvation.10
4. and hidden them Literally, "and hid him" (va-titzpeno):, according to Rashi and Kimhi,
she hid each one separately in order to make their hiding places inconspicuous.
10. doomed That is, placed under herein, which meant the annihilation of the inhabit-
ants. Cf. Deut. 2:34ff. [Transl.].
11.for the LORD your God is the only God Rahab thus expresses an exclusive monotheism.
Latter midrashic tradition says that Joshua and Rahab married, and produced prophets (includ-
ing Jeremiah) and priests. Compare Yalkut Shimoni, Joshua 2; Yalkut Shimoni, Jeremiah 1 (par.
256f); B. Zevahim 116a; and B. Megillah 14b-15a. 11 According to Matt. 1:5, Rahab was the
mother of Boaz and thus an ancestress of David.
19. and if anyone ventures outside the doors This condition to the oath recalls the for-
mulation of Jephthah's private vow—which victimized his daughter on his return from battle
(Judg. 11:31).
22. and stayed there three days This period of hiding bothered medieval rabbinic com-
mentators, who saw a contradiction between this event and a three-day period of preparations
announced by Joshua (1:11; cf. 3:2); they thus suggested that the events in Joshua 2 occurred
The dominant connection between xhepamshah and the haftarah turns on the two delegations of
spies sent to scout the Land. The little faith of the original spies (except Caleb and loshua) results
in a popular protest against Moses' plan and God's punishment of that entire generation; only the
innocent children (and the two faithful spies) are spared for entrance into the Land (Num. 14:
3 0 - 3 3 ; Deut. 1 : 3 9 ) . Hence, when loshua prepares for the crossing of the lordan, he readies himself
and the people to fulfill Moses' original project. But even more is at stake. The events in loshua 2
also begin to bring closure to hopes and prophecies found at the beginning of national memory,
when God promised settlement of the Land to Abraham in a vision (Gen. 1 5 : 1 6 - 2 1 ) .
Despite the complementarity of the pamshah and haftarah, one ironic connection stands
out. After the failure of the first venture to reconnoiter the Land, God bemoans the people's
disregard of the many "signs" (Jotot) of divine power (Num. 1 4 : 1 1 ) . The wonders of Egypt
left them faithless. H o w striking, therefore, that loshua's spies exchange "signs" ('otot) with the
harlot of lericho (their oath; her cord). It is as if the miracles of the past have been reduced to
human deals. Nevertheless, the spies learn faith from Rahab. When they return to loshua in the
Transjordan, they use her very words to them (in losh. 2 : 9 ) and say: "The L O R D has delivered
the whole land into our power . . . all the inhabitants of the land are quaking before us" (v. 24).
With this assertion they nullify the statement of fear given by the original spies, who spoke of
gigantic Canaanites and their superior power (Num. 1 3 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) .
ASHKENAZIM ISAMUEL11:14-12:22
SEPHARDIM I SAMUEL 11:14-12:22
For the contents and theology of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from this book (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah marks the end of regional leadership under inspired "judges" and the onset of
royal rule of the nation. Samuel bridges the two periods—being both a prophet-like figure who
judges the people in various locales and the one divinely enjoined to anoint a monarch. But the
leader initially refuses to go along with the people's desire for a king "like all the nations." For
Samuel, the shift from theocracy to monarchy is theologically unconscionable—a betrayal of God
and divine rule. Only God's support for the popular request changes his mind (1 Samuel 8).
The people's desire for a king is referred to repeatedly in Samuel's final speech. In the haftarah,
Samuel continues to believe that the nation's request is a betrayal of God's ongoing and gracious
care. He even brings the nation to a confession of this fact—and to a state of anguish and fear
of divine abandonment. The people thus beseech Samuel for divine intercession, lest they die
for their sins. His response is to exhort them to serve the Lord wholeheartedly and to know that
"For the sake of His great name, the L O R D will never abandon His people, seeing that the L O R D
undertook to make you His people" ( 1 Sam. 1 2 : 2 2 ) .
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)172
Samuel's speech concludes with an emphasis on the covenantal conditions for divine favor
( 1 Sam. 1 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) and a warning not to "turn away to follow worthless things, which can
neither profit nor save" (v. 2 1 ) . The comfort offered is that "the L O R D will never abandon His
people" (v. 22). Two reasons are offered: one refers to divine steadfastness "for the sake of His
great name;" the other adds that He "undertook to make you His people" (v. 22). This double
motivation evokes the transcendence of God's glory and the immanence of His historical care.
Biblical theology moves between these poles.
COMMENTS
1 Samuel 11:14. Come, letusgo to Gilgal and there inaugurate The collective invocation
("Come, let us") dramatizes the nation's involvement in the coronation. Earlier, Saul is selected
as king by divine lot and the people ratify him with the shout "Long live the king!" (1 Sam. 10:
20-24). Several malcontents then demur, and so the present event effectively "renews" rather
than simply "inaugurates" the monarchy (so Rashi; Kimhi; R. Joseph Kara). 3
Gilgal is an old site with sacral connotations. After the entrance into Canaan, Joshua performs
a mass circumcision there—and therewith initiates the settlement of the Land (Josh. 5:2-9). 4 It
also serves as a home for the Tabernacle and Ark, and so is a center of national life (Kimhi). The
monarchy is now inaugurated at the same place.
15. they declared Saul king The Hebrew verb va-yamlikhu ("they declared . . . king")
suggests more than a verbal pronouncement. In fact, a whole complex of rituals establish Saul
as king, including sacrifices of well-being.
1 Samuel 12:3. " Whose ox"haveI taken ?" Samuel's declaration of probity includes a de-
nial of robbery and bribes. This reflects an old code of judicial honor and standards. When lethro
advises Moses to appoint judges in the desert, he tells him to seek out "capable men who fear God,
trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain" (Exod. 18:21). A more formal statement of proper
conduct appears in the legal ordinances, where the Israelites are told not to "subvert the rights of
your needy in their disputes," to "keep far from a false charge," and "not take bribes, for bribes
blind the clear-sighted and upset the pleas of those who are in the right" (Exod. 23:6-8).
Later sources repeat these matters with some variation (Deut. 1:13,16-17; 16:18-19). ludges
may have been initiated into office with a proclamation of these standards by a king or other notable
(see 2 Chron. 19:4-7). Misuse of money and bribery were violations to which all were accountable,
as shown by exhortations to pilgrims to the Temple (see Ps. 15:5). Prophetic rebukes and instruc-
tions aboutjustice are rootedin these same moral demands (cf. Isa. 1:17, 21-27).
3. to look the other way Hebrew ve-'a'aliym 'einaybo (lit., "that I hid my eyes from him").
The Septuagint reflects another tradition, in which Samuel denies taking a bribe "or shoes." This
puzzling reading suggests that the translation was made from a Hebrew consonantal text with
the letters vn'lym (ve-na'alayim), rather than one with the letters v'lym. In fact, Ben Sira 46:19
(in praise of Samuel's honesty) preserves just this Hebrew word (:vn'lm). The different reading
traditions thus derive from a scribal variation between ,alef(in-pe-,acaliym) and nun (in na'alayim).
The notion of getting unjust gain by appropriating the shoes (NIPS: "sandals") of the needy is
the subject of a rebuke by the prophet Amos (Amos 2:6). 5
5. They responded,"He is/" Hebrew reads, "He responded." In Kimhi's view, the people
responded as one person. Prompted by the singular form, an old tradition regarded this as an
instance of divine intervention in human legal proceedings. Since in the preceding verse God was
invoked as a witness on behalf of Samuel, this verse was explained as a heavenly voice responding
that God is indeed a witness (B. Makkot 2313; Genesis Rabbah 85:12).
8. Whenjacob came to Egypt... The Septuagint adds, "the Egyptians oppressed them"
[Transl.].
6-12. Samuel's review oflsraelite history and divine graciousness makes strong use of
the technical terms for apostasy, punishment, and deliverance found in the Book of ludges. 6 The
In the context of Korah's rebellion, Moses sends for Dathan and Abiram, Korah's co-conspirators.
They refuse to come and insult Moses to boot. Thereupon "Moses was much aggrieved and he
said to the LORD, 'Pay no regard to their oblation. I have not taken the ass of any one of them,
nor have I wronged any one of them"' (Num. 16:15). These words of self-defense before God
are a briefer version of Samuel's litany (1 Sam. 12:3). Both men thus epitomize their leadership
in terms of justice and respect for other persons' property.
The personalities of Moses and Samuel were linked from early biblical tradition. They are
grouped together in Ps. 99:6 as intercessors before God, and it is in this role that the Lord mentions
them to Jeremiah in the final days of the kingdom o f j u d a h (Jer. 15:1). Early rabbinic homilies
note the similar recitations of integrity in xhepamshah and haftarah and present the two men as
paragons of the righteous judge (Tanhuma Shofetim 3). In this regard, both Moses and Samuel
are portrayed as resistant to any compromise of their virtue (cf. Tanhuma Buber, Korah 19). 8 A
midrash on Jer. 15:1 preserved in the Yalkut Shimoni summarizes these traditions and arranges
them in catalogue form. 9 Both men were Levites (Exod. 2:1-2, 10 and 1 Chron. 6:12-13), built
an altar (Exod. 17:15 and 1 Sam. 7:17), offered sacrifices (Leviticus 8 and 1 Sam. 7:9), called
upon the Lord (Ps. 99:6), and answered the divine call with the response hineni ("here I am"
[Exod. 3:4 and 1 Sam. 3:4]). The homilist then asks why these two prophets are exalted above
all others and answers that neither took a bribe or expropriated property. He concludes with
the observation that it was their honesty that gave them the strength to reprove the people. The
para-shah and haftarah thus underscore an ideal common denominator for leadership: selfless
service on behalf of justice and a commitment to righteousness in social affairs.
For a discussion of the Book of Judges and an overall consideration of its historiography, theo-
logy, and literary form, see "The Book of Judges" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in
the Haftarot Cycle." For other passages from the Book of Judges recited as haftarah selections,
see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah describes a matter of controversy and contention between the Israelite and non-
Israelite populations of Gilead during the early period of settlement (eleventh century B.C.E.). The
religious and historical background is summarized in Judg. 10:6-18:Israel abandons the Lord,
serving other gods, and is punished with years of oppression by the Philistines and Ammonites
(10:6-9). Eventually the nation repents and the people "removed the alien gods from among
them and served the L O R D " (W. 10-16). Meanwhile, the Ammonites again muster their troops
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)174
against Israel (v. 17), leading the officers of Gilead (who were encamped atMizpah) to say: "Let
the man who is the first to fight the Ammonites be chieftain over all the inhabitants of Gilead"
(v. 18). The events reported in the haftarah detail the emergence of that "man" and describe the
initial diplomatic maneuvers and ensuing war with the Ammonites.
COMMENTS
Judges 11:8. commander Hebrew ro'sh. This is the term used by the Gileadites among
themselves (Judg. 10:18 [NJPS: "chieftain"]) and later when Jephthah is presented to the tribes
for confirmation (11:11). The term is an old designation used to indicate tribal elders as judges (cf.
Exod. 18:25 [NJPS: "chiefs"]; Deut. 1:15; Num. 30:2 [NJPS: "heads"]; 32:28); it also indicates
the elders of patriarchal clans (e. g., 1 Chron. 5:7, 12, 15, 24). Both senses are pertinent in this
case. The designation "ro'sh of the tribes oflsrael" is applied to King Saul (1 Sam. 15:17).
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)176
10. witness ...we will do This language expresses the reciprocity of a treaty, with God
as the witness. Similar terms occur in the pact between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:50). The
term for witness here is shome'a (lit., "hearer"), that is, one who hears the terms of the treat}':
The Gileadite elders add: "we will do [na'aseh] just as you have said." This clause is clearly part
of the operative language of the agreement.
Both terms together shed light on the famous formula of compliance made by the Israelites
at the conclusion of the Sinai covenant: na'aseh ve-nishma' (Exod. 24:7). The phrase would thus
seem to have a more precise force than the general attestation "we will faithfully do" (NJPS; or
even the more literal "we will do and obey"). The formula apparently attests to an agreement
to fulfill the covenant and be responsible for the terms heard. The language would thus preserve
the formulary of aural agreements (as against treaties seen and signed).
12. Jephthah then sent messengers The account of the envoys repeats the traditions in
Numbers 20-21 (concerning the Edomites and Amorites, but not the Ammonites), with slight
differences. lephthah's envoys specify boundary points (w. 18, 22), pertinent to the present
conflict but not necessary to the original Pentateuchal narratives.
24. Chemosh yourjyod Chemosh was in fact the god of the Moabites (cf. Num. 21:29)
but is referred to here as the god of the Ammonites. Perhaps lephthah's intent is ironic: if the
Ammonites claim Moabite land, then they must worship their god as well. But it was just this
deity that lost the land to the Amorites (Kimhi).
26. three hundred years lephthah presumably uses a round figure here as a rhetorical
hyperbole. Otherwise, lephthah is factually mistaken: archeological evidence puts the Exodus in
the late thirteenth century B.C.E. and the beginning of the conquest some half-century later. A
fifteenth-century date is difficult to account for.
30-31. vow to the LORD This vow constitutes a conditional votary offering "to the LORD."
The technical language is precisely similar to Israel's (national) vow at the onset of its battle with
the king of Arad during the desert wandering (Num. 21:2-3).
R. David Kimhi (in his father's name) softens the harsh vow by distinguishing between a
sanctification and an offering to the Lord. The first would apply if the "object" for sacrifice was
ritually inappropriate; the second, if conditions proved proper. On this view, lephthah's daughter
was not sacrificed, but secluded in solitary confinement. 5 This solution is a tendentious read-
ing of verse 39 (NIPS properly distinguishes between the father's fulfillment of his vow and
the daughters virginal condition: "and he did to her as he had vowed. She had never known a
man"). 6 For the idiom ve-ha'alitihu 'olah ("shall be offered by me as a burnt offering"), cf. ve-
ha'alehu . . . le-'olah (Gen. 22:2). The old Targum takes this language literally and condemns
lephthah's deed. Compare the midrashic rejection of the false vow in Leviticus Rabbah 37:4
and Genesis Rabbah 60:3 (especially the judgment of R. Yohanan). 7 Pseudo-Philo follows this
tradition and has God add that Israel will be delivered because of its prayers—not because of
lephthah (BiblicaAntiquities 39:11). 8
The pamshah and haftarah refer to common historical events occurring in the period of desert
wanderings. Moses' solicitation of the Edomites and Amorites to pass freely through their territory
in the time of the desert trek (Numbers 20-21) is cited by lephthah's embassy to the king of the
Ammonites. He does so in order to reject the claim that the Israelites now occupy Ammonite
lands. Indeed, the historical facts are recited in order to indicate that the land under dispute had
been conquered by the Israelites from the Amorites. The events thus serve as evidence for the
Gileadite defense, and the failure of subsequent Ammonite (and Moabite) generations to chal-
lenge this situation seems to lephthah further proof that the status quo had long been accepted
as legitimate. Nevertheless, lephthah does not resort to hostilities in the first instance but tries to
ASHKENAZIM MICAH5:6-6:8
SEPHARDIM MICAH 5:6-6:8
ASHKENAZIM MICAH5:6-6:8
SEPHARDIM MICAH 5:6-6:8
For a consideration of Micah's life and message and a discussion of the themes and theology
of the Book of Micah as a whole, see "The Book of Micah" in "Overview of Biblical Books
Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." Other material from Micah used in haftarah readings is listed
in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah provides a vision of the restored community of Israel. Renewal will come like
the dew, says the prophet, an unbidden gift of God. The old enemies will be defeated. Israel's
reprehensible practices will end. As part of this process, God calls upon the people to recall His
past acts of beneficence on their account. Chagrined at their own ingratitude, the people pro-
pose various sacrificial gifts with which they might approach God. These are dismissed by the
prophet, who reminds them of God's ancient demands of justice, goodness, and humble piety.
With simple directness, this instruction encapsulates the essence of Sinai—reorienting the people
to the covenant and to a God-centered life.
The date of Micah's prophecy is unspecified. According to the superscription, he lived and
labored during the mid-eighth century B.C.E. (Mic. 1:1). This was a time of expanding Assyrian
power, and the prophet's words of doom (1:2-3:12) may anticipate or reflect the invasions that
led to the dispersion of the northern kingdom (722 B.C.E.). Looking beyond exile, Micah envi-
sions a reversal of fortune for the nation at home and abroad.
COMMENTS
Micah 5:6. The •remnant ofjacob In its original context, these references to the remnant
refer to the contemporary exile of Israelites in Assyria and elsewhere. Later generations read the
hope messianically (cf. Kimhi).
like dewfrom the LORD Israel's remnant shall be graced with divine sustenance. This
image of nurturance was given an eschatological application by Rashi: as dew comes from God,
and not from mortals, so will Israel turn only to God in times to come. R. Menahem bar Helbo
read the simile in terms of Israel's salvation coming directly from God.
The verbal parallelism "dew // droplets" recurs in Deut. 32:2. Dew is elsewhere a figure for
resurrection (Isa. 26:19). This notion is explicitly formulated in the targumic phrase "the dew
of resurrection" (talin de-tehiyyuta} [see Ps. 68:10]); also compare B. Hagigah 12b.
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)180
8. Your hand shallprevail overyourfoes Most commentators regard this as God's promise to
Israel; but it can also be interpreted as Israel's prayer to God (cf. Yalkut Shimoni 1:183, 553). 6
13. sacred posts Hebrew dsherim, masculine plural for the feminine singular noun dshe-
rah. This object is prohibited by the Torah (Deut. 16:21-22), and the destruction of Canaanite
dsherim is stressed (Exod. 34:13).
14. the nations that have not obeyed The introduction of the nations here and the reference
to disobedience are puzzling. Some commentators propose emending the wordjwyz'w (nations)
to read ge'im.7 The prophet would then refer to the "arrogant ones" oflsrael. Orthographic and
pronunciation variants of the wordgoyim led to frequent midrashic plays of this type. For example,
the keri (Scripture as recited) and ketiv (Scripture as written) variants in Gen. 25:23 are^wyzw
(^pyw) andgeyim (gyym). Where the latter was pronounced likege'im (arrogant ones), certain
ancient homilists spoke ofge'eygoyim, "the arrogant of the nations" (Genesis Rabbah 63:7). 8
Micah <5:3. Testify against Me Hebrew 'anei -pi. This is a technical expression and is used
in a similar legal sense in Samuel's final oration ('anu -pi [ 1 Sam. 1 2 : 3 ] ) . Both texts also refer to
the "gracious acts of the L O R D " ( t z i d k o t T H W H [Mic. 6 : 5 ; 1 Sam. 1 2 : 7 ] ) .
4.Moses, Aaron, andMiriam Three whom God "sent before" Israel, to lead them on
their way from Egypt to Canaan. Their formulaic combination is unique to this passage. Also
unexpected is the use of the verb "to send" with Aaron and Miriam, since it is commonly used
in connection with a prophet or divine messenger (cf. Exod. 3:10; 23:20; Num. 20:14; Isa. 6:
8). In the earlier historical review by Hosea (Hos. 12:10-14), only Moses is alluded to (v. 14);
however, Moses and Aaron both appear as pastors of God's flock in Ps. 77:21 and as "priestly"
intercessors inPs. 99:6.
5. From Shittim to Gilgal That is, the crossing of the Jordan; see Josh. 3:1, 14-14:
19 [Transl.]. This is a synopsis of the places of divine beneficence. Shittim refers to the place of
Israelite settlement when Balak called Balaam to prophesy for him in the wilderness (Num. 22:1;
25:1; 33:48-49); whereas Gilgal refers to the cult site where the kingship of Saul was renewed
after his victory against the Ammonites (1 Sam. 11:14).
6-8. A classic expression of the primacy of morality over sacrifice. In the Prophets, see
also Amos 5 : 2 1 - 2 5 , Hos. 6:6, and Isa. 1 : 1 0 - 2 0 . A similar attitude is developed in Ps. 5 0 : 7 - 2 3
and counseled in Prov. 2 1 : 3 : " T o do what is right and just is more desired by the L O R D than
sacrifice."
8. He has told you Or, "It has been told to you." The grammatical construction refers to
what is good and what the Lord requires (so NJPS). The Masoretic accentuation, however, puts a
major disjunction after the first phrase ("what is good"); the result is that the second phrase may
be interpreted as a new query ("and what does the L O R D require of you: only to do justice," etc.
The latter reading is adopted by Franz Rosenzweig at the conclusion of The Star of Redemption.9
He perceives two teachings here: the first ("He has told to you, O man [ddam], what is good
[to^])" refers back to the affirmative "good" of existence repeated in Genesis 1; the second ("and
what the L O R D requires of you") refers to the covenantal obligations given at Sinai. In this view,
the prophet alludes both to the creation and to the revelation of the Law in his instruction.
justice.. .goodness... -walk modestly The first two references to do justice and act with
goodness or loving-kindness are common elements in other covenantal synopses. The third de-
mand is less certain. The phrase ve-hatzne'a lekhet }im 'elohekha may refer to modesty or humility,
insofar as the verb hatzne'a seems to mean something done in a secret or hidden manner. An old
rabbinic teaching understood it to refer to those actions done in modesty and in secret, namely
burying the dead and providing a dowry for poor brides (B. Sukkah 49b).
Don Isaac Abravanel interprets the triad as a graded series of obligations: the first being the
demands of justice, which refer to the formalities and externals of the civil and criminal law; the
second being the need for loving-kindness, which he says refers to supererogatory acts performed
181 HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)
according to the spirit of the law, beyond its fixed or formal features; and the third element,
hatzne'a lekhet, refers to the inwardness of true piety, hidden from the world-at-large.
For Franz Rosenzweig, justice and goodness are tasks and as such speak of an unrealized
goal in the course of life. By contrast, humble living before God is the unconditional starting
point of all true living: it is a standing before the world in a "wholly present trust" and a daring
to "say 'Truly! ' to the truth" at every moment. According to his rapturous formulation, the
command to walk humbly with one's God is inscribed over the gate that leads from God's holy
sanctuary, in which no one can remain alive, into the challenges and mysteries of everyday life.
For Rosenzweig, this teaching is the ultimate revelation.
Theparashah and the haftarah are doubly entwined. For one thing, the specific verb 'anah used
in the Pentateuchal narrative to indicate Balaam's "response" to the king's request (Num. 22:
18; 23:12), is used by the prophet Micah to mark the same situation. In his riv (controversy),
he recalls to the people "what Balak king of Moab plotted against [their ancestors], and how
Balaam son of Beor responded ['anah] to him" (Mic. 6:4). For Micah, the Moabite seer's refusal
to curse Israel is evidence for God's "gracious acts" (Mic. 6:5) on behalf o f H i s people.
One of the primary features of Balaam's answer to the Moabite king is that he could not
contradict the word of the Lord in his mouth. He thus blesses Israel with fertility and growth,
boughs dripping with moisture, and roots with abundant water. Looking out upon the plain,
Balaam even utters the momentous words of praise: "How fair [mah tovu] are your tents, O
lacob, your dwellings, O Israel!" (Num. 24:5). It is a depiction of harmony and abundance, an
idyllic vision before the aesthetic eye.
The echo of Balaam's words in the haftarah provocatively juxtaposes the contemplative sight
of the seer with the moral demands of the prophet. The evocation of the wondrous gaze, mah
tovu \ohalekhaya'akov, "How fair are your tents, O lacob," is now balanced by Micah's statement
of "what is good [mah toy]" behavior in God's sight. The visions of the world thus stand to one
side and are expressed with the rhetoric of wonder; the tasks of covenantal responsibility appear
on the other and are formulated with cadences of instruction and the hierarchies of obligation.
For all that, struck by the repetition-within-variation of the phrase mah tov/u, the reader of the
pamshah and haftarah may also seek a creative integration of the aesthetic and moral—beyond
the polarities of either/or.
For the discussion of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall historiography, theo-
logy, and literary form, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in
the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the other haftarah readings taken from this work
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is part of the cycle of narratives dealing with Elijah's prophetic career (mid-ninth
century B.C.E.). After his dramatic victory over the prophets ofBaalonMount Carmel (1 Kings 18:
1-39), and their subsequent slaughter (v. 40), 1 Elijah predicts the end of a long-standing drought
and warns King Ahab to flee before the downpour (w. 41-45). With the onset of the haftarah,
we find the prophet running ahead of the king's chariot from Mount Carmel down to the Valley
of lezreel. Elijah is forced to flee further south in order to escape the curse of death uttered by
Ahab's wife lezebel, upon hearing that the prophets ofBaal had been slain. He travels down to
COMMENTS
1 Kings 18:46. He tied up his skirts The Hebrew is obscure. Alternatively, "he girded up
his loins" (cf. Kimhi, Kara, Ralbag), a military figure. Elijah ran before the chariot to accompany
the king (Rashi), expressing respect for his majesty (Kimhi). Compare B. Zevahim 102a.
1 Kings 19:1. all theprophets Of Baal; see 18:40 [Transl.].
2. Thus and more may thegods do A formula of imprecation. Many Hebrew manuscripts
and the Septuagint add "to me" [Transl.]. The plural is used because of lezebel's belief in many
deities (Kimhi; Ralbag). For the singular form, see 2 Sam. 3:35.
3. Frightened So many Hebrew manuscripts and Septuagint; most manuscripts, and
the editions, read "And he saw, and" [Transl.].
4. He came to a broom bush The prophet sat under a tree and prayed that he might die,
like lonah in Ion. 4:3 (R. loseph Kaspi).
8.forty days andforty nights Medieval commentators have pointed out a variety of simi-
larities between Moses and Elijah, (1) Moses spent forty days and nights without food on Sinai/
Horeb (Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:8-9); Elijah goes the same period without food on his journey to
Horeb. (2) Moses hid in the crevice of a rock (Exod. 33:22) as the Lord "passed" (va-ya'avor)
before him on the mountain (Exod. 34:6); Elijah was called by God from his cave as He appeared
and "passed ['over] by." (3) In God's presence, Moses expressed his humility by hiding his face
(Exod. 3:6); Elijah wrapped his face in his mantle. (See Rashi; R. loseph Kara; Kimhi.)
10.1 am moved by zealfor the LORD "Moved by zeal," kanno} kinne'ti. The prophet ex-
presses his religious passion. The same language is used to indicate Phinehas's zeal at Baal-peor
(Num. 25:11) —again in connection with idolatry. Moreover, in the Decalogue God proclaims
Both theparashah and haftarah concern zeal against false worship. This is underscored by the
verbal stem kana' (see Text and Comments). In the Torah reading, this term is part of God's
ASHKENAZIM I E R E M I A H l : l - 2 : 3
SEPHARDIM JEREMIAH 1:1-2:3
For leremiah's life and times and a consideration of the content, styles, and theology of the Book
of leremiah, see "The Book of leremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
Cycle." See also the comments to the several haftarah readings from leremiah's prophecies (listed
in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah consists of the opening portions of the Book of leremiah. After an opening
summary of the dates of leremiah's career, there follows an account ofhis prophetic commission
as a messenger of God's word. This complements the commission of Moses in xhepa-mshah and
dramatizes the continuity of divine guidance over the generations. leremiah's inauguration is
reinforced by two visionary signs that introduce the theme of divine providence and imminent
doom. A positive prophecy underscoring the special status oflsrael concludes the haftarah.
HAFTARAH FOR PINHAS (BEFORE 17TH OF TAMMUZ) 186
PART 1. HISTORICAL PROLOGUE (Jeremiah 1:1-3)
The prophet Jeremiah son of Hilkiah is introduced, and his period of service noted—from the
thirteenth year of King Josiah (627 B.C.E.) to the eleventh year of King Zedekiah (586 B.C.E.),
"when Jerusalem went into exile."
Each of the three parts of the haftarah is complex in form, style, and content. Part 1 is an objec-
tive, third-person historical superscription; it serves to summarize the chronological frame of
Jeremiah's career. Part 2 is a subjective, first-person report of God's call to the prophet; it serves
to describe and legitimate the onset of his prophecy for the readers of this collection. And Part
3 is a reported discourse of God's word to His people; it serves to highlight divine love and
protection for Israel. The haftarah thus contains three genres: an opening historical notice, a
concluding prophetic speech, and a dialogue between God and the prophet encased between
them. These three genres also anticipate the three main modes of communication in the entire
book: narrative reports by a historian (cf. Jeremiah 37-42); personal reactions of the prophet
to God's presence in his life (cf. 20:7-12) and God's response (cf. 15:15-18, 19-21); and the
voice of the prophet proclaiming God's teachings to the people.
The call to prophecy in Jer. 1:4-10 is presented as an autobiographical fragment. In it,
Jeremiah reports his divine consecration and response: God's word strikes terror in his heart,
which is countered by the promise of protection and verbal inspiration. The tremulous mood is
captured by the prophet's cry of woe 'ahah and by the divine exhortations not to fear. The promise
is repeated at the end of the unit in the image of an inviolable city (1:18-19).
The subjective tone of this passage echoes a literary pattern preserved in the prophetic calls
ofMoses (Exod. 3:10-12; 4:15), Isaiah (Isa. 6:5-7), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 2:3-3:11). Its features
include (1) an opening address by God, (2) the fear and statement of inadequacy by the prophet,
and (3) God's response, promising support and promise of aid (through a consecration of the
prophet's mouth and transfer to him of the power of divine speech).1 This common structure
makes it difficult to separate the literary pattern from the personal dimensions of the report.
Moreover, even such apparently unique elements as the report of Jeremiah's consecration from
birth may be the product of literary convention; similar characterizations of destiny are found
in accounts of royal births from Mesopotamia and Egypt. 2 In addition, Jeremiah's commission
account is also influenced by the ideology of prophecy found in the Deuteronomic tradition. As
in the Torah, where God tells Moses that the true prophet will speak what God commands and
will have divine words put in his mouth (Deut. 18:18), God tells Jeremiah to "speak whatever
I command you," for "I put My words into your mouth" (Jer. 1:7,9).
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 1:1. Jeremiah The Hebrewyirmiyahu is derived from either ramah or mm-,
the name leremiah thus means "the LORD loosens" or "the LORD is exalted."4 The stem of the
latter (r-w-w) is also suggested by the Greek transcription Ieremias. The name is attested in
Hebrew seals from the eighth century5 and also from the Lachish Letters from the time of the
fall oflerusalem. 6
Anathoth A levitical city in the territory of Benjamin (cf. losh. 21:18). As a resident
of Anathoth (ler. 29:27), leremiah's oracles incurred the wrath of the local people (11:21). His
family also had land holdings there (32:7).
2. The word ofthe LORD This is evidently a new sentence, following the overall topic
heading in verse 1. This section begins with the phrase 'asher hayah—a formulation that usually
marks a relative clause ("that was") but functions here as an independent clause (cf. ler. 14:1;
46:1; 47:1; 49:34).
in the thirteenth year Of losiah, 627 B.C.E. At this time King Nebuchadnezzar I of
Babylon revolted against his Assyrian overlord. Gradually, the Assyrian Empire was contained
HAFTARAH FOR PINHAS (BEFORE 17TH OF TAMMUZ) 188
and overcome. Babylon eventually rose to hegemony in the region, dominating Judah and de-
stroying it in 586 B.C.E.
3. until the end ofthe eleventh year... in the fifth month This is evidently a general-
ization. Jerusalem fell on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year (Jer.
39:2; 52:5-6).
5. Before I created you This translation follows the keri,'etzorkha, which is derived from
the stemy-tz-r. Rashi and R. Joseph Kara derive it from te-w-r (I formed you), but this etymol-
ogy is only correct for the ketiv (Jetzowrekha).7 Nevertheless, the apparent difference between the
keri and ketiv may simply be orthographic. In late writing traditions, a kametz katon vowel (in
our case, the o of 'etzorkha) was often indicated by the letter vav. Such is regularly the case in the
Qumran scrolls. For example, whereas Isa. 42:6 in the Masoretic text marks an act of creation
with the verb ve-'etzorkha, the large Isaiah scroll from Qumran (lQIsa a ) spells it w'tzwrkh. Clearly
the kametz katon vowel has been marked there with a vav to ensure its proper pronunciation (akin
to an "o"). This spelling convention may also explain the keri/ketiv variation in Jer. 1:5; that is,
the two forms are different spellings of one and the same verb ('etzorkha-, fromyatzar), and both
refer to Jeremiah's creation in the womb. This motif is found in Assyrian and Egyptian royal
annals, where it indicates the divine appointment of a king.8
a prophet concerning the -nations The phrase has long puzzled commentators, as Jere-
miah clearly spoke to Israel (and not just to the nations) in the course ofhis career. Accordingly,
Rashi and Kimhi refer to verse 7 in order to maintain that both Israel and the gentiles were
included within Jeremiah's mission. However, the framing of the commission with reference to
the nations who will exact divine judgment over Israel (v. 10) and the dominance of this theme
in the pot image (w. 13-15) suggest that only the foreign nations are referred to in verse 5. As
specified here, Jeremiah's role is to announce the northern enemy (and its allies; cf. v. 15) that
will destroy Judah because ofher sins.
6-9. The commission scenario follows a standard structure that includes a divine con-
frontation and commission, a prophetic objection, and a divine assurance (see above). The
statements that the prophet will go where God sends him and speak all that he is commanded
(v. 7), as well as the promise of divine protection and salvation (v. 8), both recur in verse 17-19,
thereby framing the two visions and the judgment (w. 11-16).
After a later period of despair, this imagery of protection recurs in the context of a renewal of
Jeremiah's task (15:20-21). In his complaint, the prophet also alludes to the import ofhis birth
and the eating of divine words (15:10, 16). Call scenarios regularly include "signs" as well, and
their functional equivalent occurs below in the almond tree and the pot.
7. speak -whatever I command you God tells Jeremiah to speak what he has been com-
manded, for "I put My words into your mouth" (v. 9). These words echo Deut. 18:18, where
God tells Moses that the true prophet will speak what he is commanded—for the word of God
is in his mouth. The allusion establishes Jeremiah as a true prophet in the tradition ofMoses.
10. To -uproot and to pull down This summation of functions is a leitmotif of the book
(see Jer. 18:7, 9; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4). The editorial integration of this motif with the
first vision (the almond tree, shaked [v. 11]), which portends divine watchfulness (shoked [v. 12]),
precedes their rhetorical combination in 31:28. For this form of vision, in which God uses natural
elements to portend acts of providence, see Amos 7:8 and 8:2. The same form is also used with
supernatural experiences; see Zech. 4:2 and 5:2.
13-14. steaming pot As in verses 11-12, the vision and explanation are verbally correlated
(see preceding note). Thus the steaming (naphuah) pot, tipped from the north (v. 13), symbolizes the
outbreak (tippatah) of the destruction from that region (v. 14). But the image is somewhat opaque.
For one thing, the Hebrew depicting the orientation of the pot is puzzling (panav mi-pnei tzafonah),
and some commentators have suggested that the pot was actually facing north to receive the evil
189 HAFTARAH FOR PINHAS (BEFORE 17TH OF TAMMUZ)
(Kimhi, R. Joseph Kara, Luzzatto). For another, the key verbs in verses 13 and 14 are etymologically
different (naphuah refers to "steaming," tippatah to the "outbreak" of violence). The Septuagint offers
a more harmonious connection between the verses, with its translation of the second verb "will be
brought to boil" (this presumably derives from the Hebrew tuppah or tinnupah).
north The designation is vague in this context. Jeremiah did not identify the enemy with
Babylon until 605 B.C.E. (Jer. 25:9). An old contention that the northern enemy actually refers
to Scythian invaders (based, in part, on Herodotus, 1, 105), remains inconclusive.9
15. For I am summoning Stylistically, the connective ki (for) introduces an expansion
of the terse imagery of verses 13-14.
16. them That is, Jerusalem and Judah [Transl.].
Jeremiah 2:2-3. The positive portrayal of Israel's youthful past and the marital symbol-
ism of the covenant in verse 2 echo Hosea 2. However, this portrait contradicts the repeated
episodes of faithlessness found in the Pentateuch. One must therefore suppose that different
streams of tradition and different didactic motives have found expression.
Verse 3 turns on a different metaphor. Instead of referring to Israel's relation to God as one
of espousal and marriage (v. 2), that relationship is now imagined in terms of the donation of
"first fruits." Jeremiah's identification oflsrael with first fruits also echoes a theme sounded by
Hosea (Hos. 9:10). In this case, the prophet's rhetoric is a transformation of Lev. 22:14-16. The
Pentateuchal law warns against the desecration of gifts (kodesh) devoted to the Lord and speaks of
the guilt ashmah) that accrues through eating akhal) thereof. In the prophet's transformation,
the cultic rule is read as a metaphor for God's relationship to his people. In Jeremiah's revision
of the law, Israel is figured as God's sacral portion (kodesh) and the nations that destroy them
('akhal) are "held guilty" ('asham) —with disastrous consequences.
3. holy Jeremiah's depiction of the nation as a "holy" people is indebted to contemporary
Deuteronomic theology, where the same notion is articulated (see Deut. 7:6). This categorical
formulation is a revision of the conditional depiction of the people's holy status found in Exod.
19:4-6. In that context, Israel may become holy if it observes God's teachings. The Deuteronomic
revision deems Israel holy per se and therefore holds it responsible for its covenantal observ-
ance. In any event, both of these depictions are metaphorical and without ritual implications.
They stand in contrast to Korah's assertion that all the nation is "holy" in Num. 16:3. As this
proclamation did carry cultic implications, it was intended and perceived as a rebellion against
the authority of Moses and Aaron.
For leremiah's life and times and a consideration of his overall prophetic message and theology,
see "The Book of leremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the comments to the other haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah delivers a scathing indictment of national faithlessness, ingratitude, and apos-
tasy—addressed to the House of lacob and to the families of the House of Israel. N o date is
given; but from the references to political alliances with Assyria and Egypt we may assume that
leremiah spoke these words in the final decades of the ludean state (627-586 B.C.E.), when
there were various attempts to ensure political protection against the Neo-Babylonian empire. 1
Otherwise, the accusation is without reference to specific historical events. The harsh judgments
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 2:5. What wrong did yourfathers find in Me Such rhetorical questions are
characteristic of the riv-accusation form. Compare the beginning of the accusation in Mic. 6:3,
where God asks: "My people! What wrong have I done you?" leremiah's use of the term "find"
(matza}) has a legal overtone. Compare Deut. 24:1.
6. Where is theLoRD? This type of query often invokes issues of divine might or pres-
ence. In ludg. 6 : 1 3 , Gideon ponders: "If the L O R D is with u s . . . [w]here are all His wondrous
deeds?" Similarly, in loel 2:17 and Ps. 42:4 and 11, the nations mock Israel and ask, "Where is
your/their God?" See further below, on verse 28.
7. defiled My land Acts of idolatry and false worship defile the land and the perpetrators.
This is explicitly the case in Lev. 18:24-25.
8.guardians ofthe Teaching The "guardians" are included in a larger list of indicted
persons (including priests, prophets, and kings; see also v. 26 and 18:18). The term itself, Hebrew
tofsei ha-Tomh, literally indicates those who "take hold of the Torah." It most properly denotes
a technical skill or ability (cf. Gen. 4:21; Amos 2:15). The cognate Akkadian verb (sabitu) and
noun (sabittu) also apply a term for "taking" to the act of teaching. 4
10. isles ofthe Kittim Refers to ancient Greek Kition, modern-day Larnaca on Cyrus.5
Kedar An old Arab tribe (Gen. 25:13); located in the east of Transjordan, in northern
Arabia. 6
11. itsglory Hebrew kevodo. Alternatively, this phrase refers to God's heavenly Glory
(i. e., "His Glory"), which the people denied and exchanged for "no-gods." In fact, rabbinic
tradition considered this passage one of the so-called tikkunei soferim, or "scribal corrections,"
introduced into the biblical text for the sake of a divine euphemism (cf. the list in Mekhilta de-
Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 6 [on Exod. 15:7]). The original reading presupposed by this change is
kevodi, "My Glory." Such a stark formulation presumably led certain scribes to soften the wording
by a slight orthographic change. Many interpreters, however, do not regard the new reading to
be a true scribal correction, but rather a midrashic conceit allowing references to God's Glory
to be introduced into the text. 7 A similar "correction" occurs in the rabbinic lists for Hos. 4:7. 8
Compare also Ps. 106:20.
ASHKENAZIM I S A I A H l : l - 2 7
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 1:1-27
For the life and times of Isaiah and a consideration of the content, style, and theology of the
prophecies in Isaiah 1-39, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39" in "Overview of Biblical
Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the discussion of the other haftarah readings
taken from the Book oflsaiah (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is taken from the opening chapter of the Book of Isaiah, where the prophet
accuses the people of infidelity to God, iniquity, and false reliance upon the Temple rituals. Di-
vine doom is forecast. Judah and Jerusalem shall be laid waste, with few survivors. A vision of
purgatory is also projected; after which Zion and her inhabitants shall be redeemed, and justice
will be restored.
The prophet does not specify the circumstances for his reproof. 1 According to the
superscription, Isaiah's prophetic career spanned the reigns of several Judean kings during
the last half of the eighth century B.C.E. These were decisive times, when Assyrian and Ara-
mean foes repeatedly threatened Zion and its leaders. In the end, Jerusalem was miraculously
saved (in 701 B.C.E.), and Isaiah's prophecies of doom were not realized in his lifetime.
When the city finally fell to the Babylonians a century later (in 586 B.C.E.), the prophet's
elegy of woe eikhah, "Alas" [Isa. 1:21]) came to symbolize that destruction and anticipate
the identical cry of mourning eikhah, "Alas!") recited over the city at the beginning of the
Book of Lamentations (Lam. 1:1). For that reason, later generations considered Isaiah's
prophecy to be the appropriate reading for the Sabbath preceding the fast of Tisha b'Av,
when that scroll of sorrows is chanted.
The haftarah is composed of three separate pronouncements of doom. Each presupposes the sin
and iniquity of the nation and their divine consequences. The first of these speeches (Isa. 1:2-9)
is the most bleak, charging the people with rebellion against God. 4 N o qualification mitigates the
condemnation and negative characterization. They are called a "sinful nation," a "people laden
with iniquity," a "brood of evildoers," and "depraved children" (v. 4). Indeed, they are less mindful
of their divine Lord than a dumb ox of its human master. Small wonder that a total punishment
is envisioned. The nation will bear God's wrath as a sore wound over their body, and their eyes
shall behold the devastation of their lands and cities. Zion shall be left like a solitary booth. N o
positive traits are even hinted at, and it is only through divine grace that anyone survives—for
by rights this evil nation should be destroyed utterly, like ancient Sodom and Gomorrah.
The second speech (Isa. 1:10-20) is linked to the first one through several external features:
both involve an opening appeal to an addressee to "hear" and "give ear"—the appeal is addressed
to the heavens and earth in 1:2 and to the sinful folk in 1:10; both utilize the ancient trope of
Sodom and Gomorrah—as a symbol of utter destruction in 1:9 and of inveterate sin in 1:10; and
both signify the divine authority of the pronouncement with the phrase that says that the Lord
has spoken—specifically, ki YHWH dibber ("for the L O R D has spoken") in 1:2 and ki pi YHWH
dibber (lit., "for the mouth of the L O R D has spoken") in 1:20.
These common features undoubtedly account for the editorial conjunction of the two speeches,
though in content they are quite dissimilar.5 For example, the second speech is not a doomsday
pronouncement like the first one, but a divine "instruction" that admonishes the people's misuse
of the Temple and provides corrective counsel. God tells the people that He has no need of their
sacrifices or incense or prayer—because He "cannot abide" their solemn assemblies while they
are steeped in iniquity and will ignore the prayers uttered by those with crime on their hands.
The nation is therefore advised to purge itself of evil and turn to acts of justice. Such behavi-
ors will restore the people to God and earthly bounty, whereas rejection of them will result in
doom. The prophet thus teaches that the people's abuse of religion and its institutions may be
corrected and that their punishment is not irrevocable (as in the first speech). In Isaiah's words,
the people's fate hangs on their decision to follow God's instruction of social justice. This is the
core of divine concern.
The third speech (Isa. 1:21-27) continues the themes of the second one but is distinct in
genre and theological emphasis. Like its predecessor, this pronouncement emphasizes the injustice
that fills the city and the rampant disregard of both orphan and widow (1:23; cf. v. 17). But
unlike the second speech, the final one is a lament bewailing the destitution of Fair Zion and the
doom that is yet to come. 6 Divine punishment will wreak vengeance, measure for measure: as
the people's "silver has turned to dross" (1:22), cheapening the coin of exchange through deceit,
so will God "smelt out your dross as with lye" (v. 25).
But this bleak image of divine purgation is not the end. It is connected to a concluding promise
that justice and judgment will ultimately be restored (Isa. 1:26). Moreover, the haftarah as a whole
ends with a teaching of redemption and the renewal of right action (v. 27). According to one
reading of that verse, God announces that "Zion shall be saved in the judgment \be-mishpat~]; her
repentant ones \shavehah\ in the retribution \bi-tzdakahY (NIPS). This would suggest that the
people of Zion who return to the Lord will not be destroyed in the divine fire and adds a codicil
ofhope to the categorical doom pronounced in verses 21-26. Alternatively, and in keeping with
the prophet's lament of how Zion has turned from a city of "justice" (mishpat) and "righteousness"
(tzedek) to one of murder and deceit (v. 21), the final proclamation may rather state that "Zion shall
be saved throughy^Jtzce, and those who dwell therein [or, repent] through acts of righteousness."
This reading would counterpoint the judgment of immorality threatened in the lament; but the
verse is opaque and has been so for readers since antiquity (see Text and Comments).
Viewed synoptically, the three speeches express the inversion of cultural values, be it the betrayal
of covenantal loyalty, the perversion of ritual, or the blindness of moral vision. Only the divine
COMMENTS
Isaiah 1:1. The prophecies of Isaiah The word "prophecies" translates Hebrew hazon,
"vision." The generalizing use of hazon also occurs in the superscriptions to the prophecies of
Amos, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk, although in these cases reference to the visionary experience
of the prophet is linked to such terms as davor (word), and masa} (pronouncement). Kimhi also
understood the word hazon here as a comprehensive designation, saying that "harsh rebukes are
called hazon". But this interpretation is forced. Better is Abravanel's observation that hazon only
refers to the immediately ensuing material—not to all the prophecies of the book (cf. OJPS: "The
vision oflsaiah"). The import of the phrase is "[God's] vision" to the prophet (Saadiah Gaon).
Given that the Book oflsaiah includes traditions of restoration (chapters 40-66), the term
hazon may have been chosen by later editors to suggest that Isaiah of Jerusalem also envisioned
the eschatology portrayed at the end of the work. This seems to have been the understanding of
Ben Sira in the second century B.C.E., when he described Isaiah as one who "envisioned the end
through the spirit of prophecy" (be-mah nevu'ah hazah 'aharit [Ben Sira 48:5]).
concemingjudah andjerusalem This does not refer to the whole book, which includes
prophecies to other nations. 7
in the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham,Ahaz, and Hezekiah Kings of the eighth to seventh
century B.C.E. (769-698 B.C.E.). The present chapter is not specifically dated. Since the Middle
Ages it has been suggested that the commission scene in Isaiah 6 is the beginning of Isaiah's
prophetic career; this event occurred after the death of King Uzziah (Rashi; Ibn Ezra). For
modern arguments, see the haftarah for Yitro.
2.Hear,Oheavens.. .for the LORD has spoken The call to heaven and earth as witnesses
to a divine admonition is also found in Deut. 32:1. Since antiquity, it has been surmised that
Isaiah alludes here to this text, and the statement "for the LORD has spoken" was understood to
reinforce this point (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Bo' 12). 8 In Mic. 6:1, a similar formulation
introduces a riv (controversy) against the nation. 9 While in ancient Near Eastern treaties the
divinities of heaven and earth were invoked as enduring witnesses, the invocation of natural
phenomena in the Bible is largely a matter of rhetoric.
According to rabbinic tradition, in Deut. 32:1 Moses refers first to the heavens and then the
earth, since he was near to the heavens, whereas Isaiah reverses the order, since he was closer to
the earth (cf. Kimhi, following Tanhuma Ha'azinu 2).
I reared children ana brought them up "The parallelism is to strengthen the point with
verbal variants; but the sense is the same" (Kimhi).
HAFTARAH FOR PINHAS (BEFORE 17TH OF TAMMUZ) 198
4.Ah, sinful nation The word "Ah" (hoy) is a cry of woe (Kimhi). It is a recurrent ele-
ment of Isaiah's rebukes (cf. Isa. 5:8, 18, 21-22). A series of crimes are then imputed, listed
without the connecting conjunction "and." This stark enumeration "heightens the force of the
discourse" (Luzzatto). 10
Holy One oflsrael A characteristic divine epithet in the Book of Isaiah. God is called
"holy" (kadosh) seventeen times in chapters 1 - 3 9 (cf. Isa. 5:16, 19) and fifteen times in chapters
40-66. An orison to the sanctity of God is the trisagion (threefold kadosh) in Isa. 6:3. The term
is thus a defining feature of the Isaianic theological tradition.
8. like a booth in a vineyard The prophet says that after the destruction Zion will be "like"
a booth. According to Kimhi, this means that God will abandon Israel as a watchman does his
booth (at harvest's end). Alternatively, the figure bespeaks the desolation of the nation itself.
9.Left us some survivors This rendering takes sarid ki-m'at as one clause, following the
Masoretic punctuation (so also Ibn Kaspi and Ibn Ezra). But the result is somewhat redundant.
Alternatively, read sarid with the preceding clause (i. e., "left us a remnantfy) an&kim'at with the next
one (i. e., "we should be somewhat like Sodom"). This reading is preferred by Rashi, Kimhi, and
Luzzatto, among others (cf. Ps. 94:17); it has roots in talmudic exegesis (B. Berakhot 29a).
like Sodom The story in Genesis 19 serves here, as elsewhere, as a paradigm of divine
destruction (cf. Deut. 29:22; Amos 4:11). The perversity of the people of Sodom also serves
as a negative model for the prophet in Isa. 1:10 (cf. Deut. 32:32). Reference in Isa. 1:7 to the
land "as overthrown \ke-mahpekhat\ by strangers [zarim]" alludes to this scenario (for the phrase
mahpekhat Sedom [the destruction of Sodom], see Deut. 29:22). Alternatively, mahpekhat zarim
is a scribal error for mahpekhat Sedom, under the influence of the word zarim at the beginning
of the phrase.
10. Give ear to our God's instruction The prophet uses the word torah (instruction) to
mean prophetic teaching (Luzzatto). This is also the sense of the word in Isa. 2:3, "for instruc-
tion shall come forth from Zion," in the context of a vision of universal peace. The instruction
given in 1:16-17 emphasizes moral-social matters after the denunciation of cultic impropriety
(see Comment to w. 16-17).
11. What need have J? A wide-ranging rejection of God's need for or delight in animal
sacrifices. The issue of "need" is also rebutted in Ps. 51:18, and the theme of "delight" is critiqued
in 1 Sam. 15:22. The emphasis on morality over sacrifices is a theme stressed in Amos 5:21-24.
Sacrifices per se are not rejected by the prophet, only hypocrisy and combining "assemblies with
iniquity" (Isa. 1:13). The purification of self and the practice of moral rectitude were a condition
for proper use of the Temple. This is strongly stressed in Psalms 15 and 24. 11
16-17. The prophet provides a list of proper actions. This is the positive core of the
prophetic "instruction" (torah [v. 10]). Purification and purgation of evil are combined with the
emphasis on justice and righteousness.
Rabbinic midrash notes nine virtues in this list and links them to the nine days between Rosh
Hashanah and Yom Kippur; and as the tenth day is the day of purification and atonement, so
here the tenth feature of the list is "'Come, let us reach an understanding,'—says the LORD. 'Be
your sins like crimson, they can turn snow-white'" (v. 18) (Yalkut Shimoni 2:389). Rashi refers
to these ten topics as being ten warnings and exhortations to repentance. Both interpretations
thus correlate Isaiah's list with the Ten Days of Repentance, beginning with Rosh Hashanah
and climaxing on Yom Kippur.
17. Aid the wronged The meaning of the Hebrew 'ashru hamotz is uncertain (NIPS).
The verb 'ashru has been understood to mean "strengthen" (M. Ketubbot 21:1; B. Gittin 87a);
or "straighten" (taking the verb to be \ikcyashru) (Kimhi; Ibn Ezra); or "guide" (Kaspi). The
word hamotz seems to have the sense of oppression (cf. Ps. 71:4). R. Isaiah di Trani considered
it to be a variant of the word hamas (oppressive action).
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH40:l-26
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 40:1-26
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings from this collection (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
Isaiah 40:1-26 constitutes the opening section of what Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra called "the
second part of the book" (in his comment on Isa. 40:1). It marks a major shift in time and focus
from the concluding prophecies of the first part (Isaiah 36-39), which deal with episodes near
the end of King Hezekiah's reign—especially the miraculous salvation of lerusalem from the
Assyrians in 701 B.C.E. (Isaiah 36) and a visit to lerusalem by emissaries of the Babylonian king
Merodach-baladan (Isaiah 39). By contrast, Isaiah 40 opens with prophecies of consolation ad-
dressed to the ludeans exiled to Babylon in the deportations of 597 and 586 B.C.E. and to the
destroyed city of lerusalem. The proclamation states that the people's sins have been forgiven
and the time of punishment is complete. The prophecies of Isaiah 40 thus postdate 538 B.C.E.,
after Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon and issued a proclamation permitting the restoration
of subject peoples under his dominion. For this Cyrus is even designated the Lord's "anointed"
(;meshiho) agent, strengthened and supported in his divine task (Isa. 45:1-2).
An account of Cyrus's decree has been preserved on a cylinder inscription, 1 and transcripts of
the proclamation (possibly even deriving from the ancient Persian chancellery) are found in the
Bible. Ezra 1:2-4 preserves a record of the decree in Hebrew, while Ezra 6:3-5 gives a slightly
different version of it in Aramaic. 2 From this source, we learn that the Persian king fostered a
return of the ludean diaspora to lerusalem and permitted the rebuilding of their Temple there.
He also allowed those lews who remained in exile to help finance the return of their compatriots
to Zion.
The haftarah does not use the language of political freedom, but announces God's heavenly
word of comfort and restoration. The prophecy reorients the people to Zion and announces the
advent of God's Presence—to confirm His word and guide His people to their homeland. This
recitation inaugurates a cycle of seven readings that emphasize divine consolation and national
renewal (see Connections between the Haftarah and the Special Sabbath).
COMMENTS
Isaiah 40:1. Comfort, oh comfort Hebrew nahamu nahamu. An address in the second-per-
son plural. The double verb form is a hallmark of this prophet (cf. Isa. 51:9, 17; 52:11). It serves
to express rhetorical intensification (Kimhi). In Ibn Ezra's opinion, it "indicates that the comfort
will occur swiftly or repeatedly." The plural address has been variously interpreted. According to
Ibn Ezra, it is spoken to the messengers of the people. Beginning with the Targum, the addressees
have been presumed to be many prophets (Rashi; R. Isaiah di Trani; Ibn Bal'am; Metzudat David).
Such prophetic messengers are otherwise absent from the book. Alternatively, Isaiah perceives God's
address to His angelic emissaries and reports it to the nation. See Comment to verse 3.
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH49:14-51:3
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 49:14-51:3
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book oflsaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings from this collection (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah enunciates the despair of Zion, personified as saying that she has been forgotten
and abandoned by God since the destruction of the Temple (in 586 B.C.E.) and the exile of her
people to Babylon. Divine consolation rejects this view with an assertion of God's care and a
promise of the nation's return to its homeland. This prophecy of hope was delivered sometime
after Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon and issued a proclamation (in 538 B.C.E.) permitting
the restoration of subject peoples under his dominion. 1 This haftarah is the second of seven
weekly haftarot of consolation following Tisha b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned. 2
It begins with despair and concludes with divine comfort.
The haftarah weaves a rich tapestry of consolation and exhortation. The dominant polarities
are stressed at the beginning and end. The recitation begins with Zion's words of despair, "The
L O R D has forsaken me" (Isa. 49:14), and concludes with the notice that "Truly the L O R D has
comforted Zion" (51:3). Between these poles are divine assurances, remonstrations, and words
of expectation.
The unit gains dramatic force through a series of rhetorical questions. Each one marks a
distinct stage in the argument. The first rhetorical question occurs at the outset, in the divine
response to Zion's despair. God answers: "Can a woman forget her baby, or disown the child
of her womb? Though she might forget, I never could forget you" (Isa. 49:15). Thus divine
concern for Zion and her children transcends even the most fundamental instinct of maternal
care.3 With deft irony, Zion's all-too-human despair is deemed baseless. The Lord is not one to
forget fundamental attachments.
The second rhetorical question is also designed to counter unwarranted assumptions. Promises
of a national restoration accompanied by foreign kings tending Israelite children and foreign
queens serving as their nursemaids (Isa. 49:22-23) might seem excessive. They are therefore
reinforced by the query "Can spoil be taken from a warrior, or captives retrieved from a victor?"
(v. 24). With little faith or normal instincts, one could be skeptical on this score. Hence the un-
compromising conclusion, which begins in a way that seems to confirm this assumption—but
then reverses it in no uncertain terms. "Captives shall be taken from a warrior and spoil shall be
retrieved from a tyrant"; because it is the Lord who will contend for His people (v. 25). In His
great might, success is assured.
The third rhetorical question makes a different point. It comes in the context of God's
rebuke of the people for having ignored His word of salvation. "Why," He asks, "would none
respond?"—and goes on rhetorically to ask: "Is my arm, then, too short to rescue, have I not
the power to save? With a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, and turn rivers into desert. Their fish
stink from lack of water . . ." (Isa. 50:2). The issue here is Israel's lack of faith in divine salvation.
With blatant mockery, God asks if His arm is too short to save. The point is deemed absurd, for
it is immediately rebuffed by evoking God's powers over nature. Control of the sea is specifically
mentioned—though it is uncertain whether the "rebuke" of the waters refers to some mythic
moment at creation (cf. Ps. 104:7, where the same verb occurs) 4 or, as seems more likely here,
to the splitting of the sea at the Exodus (cf. Kimhi). Elsewhere, the prophet refers to both of
these acts together (Isa. 51:9-10). In the present instance, God claims that He is ready to save
but that the people have not been responsive. Deaf to God's call, the people project an invalid
theology of divine abandonment.
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)206
In these rhetorical tropes, God's presence is variously presented through the figure of a hand
or arm. In the first case, the divine assertion that He could never forget Zion is reinforced by
the remark, "See, I have engraved you on the palms of My hands, your walls are ever before me"
(Isa. 49:16). This is a remarkable mythic image in which the pattern of Zion and her ramparts
are etched on God's own hands as an eternal remembrance of her. God, as it were, meditates
constantly upon Zion the way the faithful are bidden to bind God's teachings upon their own
arms so that they may be ever mindful of their religious obligations (Deut. 6:8-9).
The other two occurrences of the figure express power. One reports how God promised:
"I will raise up My hand to nations . . . and they shall bring your sons [back to Zion] in their
bosoms" (Isa. 49:22); the other, just mentioned, emphasizes the power of God's hand to save
Israel—if they would only heed His call (50:2). In each case, the anthropomorphic imagery
is stated boldly and without qualification—giving dramatic intensity to the claims made. The
personified lament of Zion is met with the assurance of a personified God: a God of pathos and
compassion, with the power to save.
The bold imagery goes further and portrays God and Zion as a matrimonial couple whose
children are the nation. This topic is anticipated from the first, where God invokes the relation-
ship between a mother and her child to express His abiding concern for Zion (Isa. 49:15-17). It
continues further through the promise that Zion shall bedeck herself in her returning children like
a bride covered with jewels (49:18). And finally, these hints assume a more poignant assertiveness
when God counters the people's sense of abandonment with the query "Where is the bill of divorce
of your mother whom I dismissed?" (50:1). The question is rhetorical, to be sure, but expresses
an unbroken bond between God and His city—a bond dramatized elsewhere through the figures
of marriage, divorce, and erotic delight (62:1-5). Old mythological tropes about the relationships
between deities and their cities or consorts thus palpably energize this material, despite the rhetori-
cal reserve exercised by the prophet. Indeed, it is just this artful balance between personification,
mythic realism, and theological restraint that gives the prophecies their dramatic effect.5
The haftarah ends with a series of speeches by the prophet, who affirms his own faithfulness
to his prophetic task. By God's grace he has delivered "timely words to the weary" and "did not
disobey" (Isa. 50:4-5) —despite persecution and abuse. He was beaten, scourged, and reviled,
but he stood his ground and overcame the affliction through confidence in God's protection.
"But the Lord GOD will help me—therefore I feel no disgrace; therefore I have set my face like
flint, and I know I shall not be shamed" (50:7). The prophet goes on to exhort his compatriots
in faith and confidence. He calls upon those who would revere the Lord to trust in the "voice
of His servant" and "in the name of the LORD"—though they now walk in darkness and despair.
Only God's supernatural word will give true light; those who rely on their own natural prowess,
to "walk by the blaze of [their own] fire," shall be doomed in sorrow (Isa. 50:10-11).
In a further word, those who "seek the L O R D " are given an example of faith upon which to
model themselves. They are told to "look to the rock you were hewn from"—to "Abraham your
father" and to "Sarah who brought you forth." For the patriarch heard God's word of promise of
a mighty nation in a new land, and though "he was only one when I [God] called him," he was
"blessed" for his trust and "made . . . many" (Isa. 51:1-2). Abraham's faith may thus instruct
his descendants in exile. They too can respond to God's word of promise and return. 6 To bolster
the nation's resolve, the prophet concludes with a proclamation of assurance and Utopian vision:
"Truly the LORD has comforted Zion, comforted all her ruins; He has made her wilderness like
Eden, her desert like the Garden of the LORD. Gladness and joy shall abide there, thanksgiving
and the sound of music" (v. 3).
Looking to the past, the people may restore their future; acting for the future, the nation may
overcome their past. The renewal of Zion is imagined as nothing less than a renewal of Eden—a
transformation of exile and the blight of history. The homeland will be paradise regained.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 49:14. Zion says, "The LORD hasforsaken me" This lament is one of several
prophecies of comfort addressed to Zion (cf. Isa. 51:12-23; 52:1-2, 7-10; 62:1-7, 8-12).
her baby Hebrew 'ulah derives from the stem c-w-l (cf. Isa. 65:2), a biform of 'ollel (ler.
6:11) (Ibn Ezra). In a striking homiletic transformation found in the Midrash, 'ulah is related to
Israel accepting the "yoke" (col) of the Kingdom of Heaven at Sinai—a fact never to be forgotten
in her favor (Tanna de-Bei Eliyahu 17).
16. I have engraved you God has engraved the image of Zion upon His palms, as a
constant memorial. This bold anthropomorphic figure was later softened by the qualification
"as if" (Targum; Rashi; Kimhi) 9 or by understanding kapayim (palms) as "clouds" (cf. lob 36:
32; R. Saadiah Gaon and Rashi). Ibn Ezra rejects this view on the basis of the parallel phrase
and interprets the figure as an expression of God's constant remembrance of Zion. Regarding
body engravings, the prophet elsewhere says that a devotee may mark God's Name on his arm
to signify allegiance (Isa. 44:5). 10
17. Swiftly your children "Your children," Hebrew banayikh. The large Isaiah scroll at
Qumran reads bonayikh, "your builders." 11 The term is juxtaposed to "those who ravaged and
ruined you." A similar reading is indicated by R. Saadiah Gaon.
23. Kings shall tend your children A vision of social reversal in which the powerful
shall serve the (now) powerless people oflsrael. This theme is expanded in Isa. 60:14. There,
Zion's being forsaken is also reversed: "Whereas you have been forsaken . . . I will make you a
pride everlasting" (Isa. 60:15).
24. Can spoil be takenfrom a warrior... ? The speaker is unclear. For some, these words
are imputed to the nations (Kimhi), or the words of the prophet may be on behalf oflsrael (Ibn
Ezra). This may also be a divine query (followed by the answer in v. 25).
Isaiah 50:1. Where is the bill of divorce... ? Hebrew sefer keritut,12 The question is
rhetorical. N o divorce took place; there was only a temporary dismissal for sins. By contrast,
the theme of God's divorce oflsrael recurs in Hosea 2; ler. 3:1, 6-10; and Ezekiel 16 and 23.
Traditional commentators resolved the contradiction by distinguishing between God's divorce
of the northern tribes oflsrael (many of which did not return to the homeland) and His banish-
ment of ludah until the time of their reconciliation (Ibn Ezra; Kimhi). The marriage motif also
underlies God's promised reconciliation with the people (Isa. 54:4-7) and the Land (62:3-5).
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)208
4. a skilled tongue The prophet affirms that his tongue has been shaped by God "to
know how to speak;" that his ear is aroused to hear the divine instruction, and that he has obeyed
the word of God to him (v. 5). Though stated differently, this is a theme of prophecy first found
with Moses (Exod. 4:11-12). Later tradition understood this "skilled tongue" to be the ability
to speak favorably in defense oflsrael (Yalkut Shimoni 2:406).
8. Let us stand up together! That is, as opponents in court; compare Num. 35:12, which
speaks of standing trial "before the assembly" [Transl.].
Isaiah 51:1. Look to the rock According to Joseph ibn Kaspi, verse 1 constitutes a mashal
(parable) and verse 2 (applying the imagery to Abraham and Sarah) its nimshal (application). 13
Rashi, Kimhi, and Ibn Ezra understood a similar relationship between the verses.
2. who broughtyouforth In context, teholelkhem, which is in the future tense, should be
understood as if it were the past tense holelatkhem (Ibn Ezra).
3. Truly the LORD has comforted... has made The verbs are in the so-called prophetic per-
fect, where the assurance of a future event is depicted as having already occurred (cf. Kimhi).
The haftarah is the second in a cycle of seven weeks of consolation that follow Tisha b'Av (see the
haftarah for Va-'ethannan). It follows a bold proclamation of comfort to Zion and the people in
the first week. Echoing the despair that concludes Lamentations (recited on Tisha b'Av), "Why
have You forgotten us utterly, forsaken us for all time?" (Lam. 5:20), Zion is cited by the prophet
as saying, "The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me" (Isa. 49:14). This assertion
is rejected—for even if "a woman forget her baby" the Lord "never could forget you" (v. 15).
This image is poignant and reminds readers of laments of moments in the siege when "babes and
sucklings languish in the squares of the city . . . as their life runs out in their mothers' bosoms"
(Lam. 2:11-12)—and more horrible to say, the accusation that God's wrath caused "women [to]
eat their own fruit" (v. 20), in fulfillment of ancient curses (Deut. 28:53-57). If once it seemed
to the people that the Lord "acted like a foe" and "laid waste all [Zion's] citadels" (Lam. 2:5),
He now asserts that "your walls are ever before Me"—for indeed, "I have engraved you on the
palms o f M y hands" (Isa. 49:16).
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH54:ll-55:5
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 54:11-55:5
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book oflsaiah: Chapters 44-66" in "Overview
ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah gives comfort to Zion and her inhabitants, destroyed and dispersed after the
Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The prophecy was proclaimed at least a half-century later, after
Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon and issued his decree (in 538 B.C.E.) allowing the Jews and
other subject populations to return to their native lands. 1 The prophet promises the restoration of
"unhappy . . . uncomforted "(Isa. 54:11) Zion and protection against all harm. He also delivers
God's promise to renew "an everlasting covenant, the enduring loyalty promised to David" (55:
3). This haftarah is the third of seven prophecies of consolation recited after the fast of Tisha
b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned.
HAFTARAH FORPINHAS(BEFORE17THOFTAMMUZ)209
PART 1. RENEWAL AND PROTECTION (Isaiah 54:11-17)
This unit promises a spectacular rebuilding of Zion and the religious devotion of its inhabit-
ants. "Righteousness \tzedakahY will be the basis of renewal (v. 14), and God's own protection
will be His servants' "triumph \tzidkatamY (v. 17).
COMMENTS
13.And all your children shall be disciples Hebrew limmudei means "disciples" (cf. Isa.
8:16). The ensuing promise, "and great \rav\ shall be the happiness of your children \banayikhY
bears comment. A well-known rabbinic midrash on this verse puns on the assonance between
banayikh, "sons," and bonayikh, "builders." On this basis, it was taught that knowledgeable children
are the culture builders of the next generation (B. Berakhot 64a). In fact, the word's original
sense may have been "your learned ones" (from the verb ^jyw, "to know"). 2 It would thus have
paralleled "disciples" in the first line.
14. You shall be established thromyh righteousness This phrase recalls Isa. 1:27, "Zion
shall be saved by justice, her repentant ones by righteousness." 3 The divine word established
a condition to be fulfilled in the future; the ensuing imperative rahaki ("be far" or "safe from
oppression") reinforces this predictive aspect.4
15. Surely no harm can be done Understanding Hebrewgoryagur from the root sense
o f g u r , meaning "be afraid." Alternatively, "Behold they may gather together, but not by Me"
(OJPS), understandinggur in the sense of "to gather" (cf. Hab. 1:15). See the paraphrase of
Ibn Janah 5 and the comment o f l b n Ezra.
17. their triumph Hebrew tzidkatam. The force of the noun is justification in court and
counterpoints the opening clause (cf. Exod. 23:7; 2 Sam. 15:4; Isa. 5:23; Prov. 17:15). God is
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH210
the vindicator oflsrael and thus the One who brings them triumph. Both senses recur in Isaiah
40-66 (cf. 42:21; 45:25; 50:8; 58:2, 8; 63:1).
Isaiah 55:1. all who are thirsty The appeal is either to those oflsrael who yearn for the
Lord or to the nations who desire God's teaching (Ibn Ezra). The imagery of hunger and thirst
indicates a state without divine instruction, as in Amos 8:11 (cf. Kimhi).
3. The enduring loyalty promised to David The royal covenant given to David (2 Samuel
7) is now transferred to the entire people. The phrase employs hesed in the sense of covenant
faithfulness (see Comment to Isa. 54:6-8 in the haftarah for Noah). The divine pact with David
promised unconditional commitment. 6
4. a leader of peoples Hebrew ''ed, "witness." The figure combines images oflsrael's mis-
sion as a "light of nations" and "witnesses" to God's power for all (cf. Isa. 42:7; 43:10). 7
5. a nation that did not know you / Shall come running to you Compare 2 Sam. 22:44
(Ps. 18:44): "Peoples I knew not must serve me" [Transl.].
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH51:12-52:12
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 51:12-52:12
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings from Isaiah's prophecies (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is a series of pronouncements of divine comfort to Zion and the nation. The
city was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., and a major portion of the population went
into exile. After Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon, he issued a proclamation (in 538 B.C.E.)
that allowed subject populations to restore their religious heritage and return to their homeland. 1
Israelite prophets were active in Babylon during this period, and the present prophecy reflects
an attempt to instill hope in a new future. The haftarah emphasizes the renewal of Zion and the
redemption of the people. The Lord will also return to Zion, renewing His kingship there for
all to see. Isaiah 51:12-52:12 is the fourth of seven weekly haftarot of consolation recited after
the fast of Tisha b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned. 2
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH212
rear guard" (52:12) clearly allude to the traditions of the Lord "marching before" the people
(.holekh lifneikhem) on the way to the Promised Land (Deut. 1:30, 33) and o f H i s protection of
their flanks (Exod. 14:19). These allusions convey the sense that the new redemption will be like
the old one—a reiteration in the present of that great event of liberation.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 51:12. am He Hebrew hu\ A striking midrash attempts to fill in such an asser-
tion, stating that "with that which Israel sinned they were punished and comforted." Various
sins involving the head, the eye, the ear, and so on are enumerated and linked to their subsequent
tribulations and healing. At the theological level, Israel sinned against God when they were "false
to the L O R D and said: lo}hu\ ' H e i s n o t s o ! ' " (ler. 5:12). 4 Consequently, "He became their enemy
and hu} [Himself] made war against them" (Isa. 63:10). But in the end "hu } [He]" became their
comforter—as we read here (Lamentations Rabbah 1:57).
who comforts you Hebrew 'menahemkhem. This expression counterpoints the lament that
"Zion spreads out her hands, she has no one to comfort her ['ein menahem lah]n (Lam. 1:17).
In this verse, the divine voice shifts from the collective plural "you" (menahemkhem) to the
feminine singular "you" ("What ails you that you fear?" mi }at va-tir'i)-, and in the next verse,
the addressee shifts to the masculine singular "you" ("You have forgotten the L O R D your Maker,"
va-tishkah YHWH 'osekha). This variation evokes a sense of totality that includes the people and
city of Zion. R. David Kimhi tried to formulate a comprehensive principle: "When [Scripture]
speaks in the plural, the individuals [of the community of Israel] are addressed; when it utilizes
the masculine singular form, the group as a whole is meant; and when the feminine singular form
is used, the addressee is the 'synagogue. '" 5 In the haftarah, and generally in the prophecies of
comfort in the Book of Isaiah, this "synagogue" is the personified city or people of Zion.
likegrass Literally, "grass" (hatzir), the comparison being implied (Ibn Ezra; Kimhi).
For the comparison of humans to grass that vanishes, see Isa. 40:6. The image has entered mod-
ern lewish consciousness through the admonishment of Hayyim Nahman Bialik, in his poem,
"Truly, the Nation Is as Grass" ('akhen hatzir ha-'am).
13, 16. Who stretched out the skies... who planted the skies The former phrase (noteh
shamayim) is an image of the creation that is common in Isaiah's rhetoric (also 40:22; 42:5;
44:24) and elsewhere (Zech. 12:1; Ps. 104:2; lob 9:8). It has a central position in thcAleinu
prayer. The latter phrase (linto'a shamayim) in verse 16 is difficult. Many modern commentators
assume that linto'a is an error for lintot (to stretch), from the same stem as noteh in verse 13.
Compare the Syriac version.
14. Quickly the crouching one isfreed For the sense of tzo'eh as meaning "crouching" or
"lying low," compare ler. 2:20; but the image is odd. Some medieval commentators understood
the verb as indicating something constrained or closed that is subsequently opened. For example,
Ibn Ezra and R. Eliezer of Beaugency see the issue as being released from a siege or incarcera-
tion, respectively. Such a metaphorical understanding of the verb here is already proposed by Ibn
lanah. 6 The verb has Arabic cognates with just this sense (Luzzatto). 7
16. HaveputMy words in your mouth The beginning of this phrase is "For I the L O R D
your God" in verse 15. It is interrupted by the epithet and designation "Who stirs up the sea . . .
whose name is L O R D of Hosts." In the Torah and preexilic prophecy, this phraseology is used to
indicate God's verbal inspiration of the prophet (see Deut. 18:18 and ler. 1:9). In the present
context, it is applied to the nation as a whole—suggesting that they shall be graced with God's
prophetic word (R. Isaiah di Trani). This would also be the case in Isa. 59:21. Abravanel takes
a different approach and regards the "words" to be the study of Torah, through whose merit the
people will be redeemed from exile. Luzzatto combines both views.8
You are My people\ A formula of adoption and covenant relationship. Compare Lev.
26:12; Deut. 4:20; ler. 7:23; andEzek. 36:28. 9
213 HAFTARAH FOR SHOFETIM
17. Rouse, rouse yourself! This image of Zion's renewal, along with that in 52:1-2
("Awake, awake . . . put on your robes of majesty . . . arise, shake off the dust"), has become
part of the Jewish liturgical imagination through the Sabbath hymn "Lekhah Dodi" (written by
R. Shelomo Halevi Alkabetz, ca. 1540). 10
17. the cup ofHis wmth The motif of the cup as an image of punishment is important
in this prophecy (w. 17-23), since redemption is signaled by its transfer to Israel's oppressors.
Compare also the use of the motif in Jer. 25:15-29 and in Ezek. 23:32-34, where the cup is
transferred from Israel to Judah. The word kubadt as "bowl" (NJPS) follows the opinion of R.
Eliezer of Beaugency; a dominant medieval tradition understood it to refer to the "dregs" or
"lees" of the cup (Saadiah Gaon; Rashi; Ibn Ezra; Ibn Bal'am; Kimhi; Kara; di Trani).
reeling Hebrew tar'elah. For this rendering, see Kimhi. The image of a "cup of reeling"
recurs in v. 22, where God promises the withdrawal ofhis wrath.
18. She has none toguide her... of all the sons she reared To guide a drunken parent
home was a recognized filial duty in ancient Canaan and Egypt [Transl.].
19. how shall I comfort you? Hebrew mi \anahamekh. Medieval commentators saw here
an elliptical expression and rendered it: "by means of whom shall I comfort you?" (cf. Rashi;
Ibn Ezra). The large Isaiah scroll from Qumran reads miyenahamekh, "who shall comfort you?"
Such a reading parallels the preceding query, miyanud lakh, "who can console you?"
Isaiah 52:1. Jerusalem, holy city! This transfer of holiness to the city as a whole is a
late development; another postexilic prophet refers to the land of Judah as "the Holy Land"
(Zech. 2:16).
For the uncircumcised... shall never enter you again This assertion that the foreigners
will never again "enter" {yavoJerusalem inverts the ancient lament. "The foe has laid hands on
everything dear to her [Zion]. She has seen her Sanctuary invaded [ba'u] by nations which You
have denied admission asher tziwita lo'yavo'u] into Your community" (Lam. 1:10).
2. sit [onyour throne], Jerusalem This paraphrastic rendition ofshevi (sit) is an attempt
to relate to the preceding call to "arise." The divine imperative would then be a call to Zion to
rise from her mourning and sit in royal splendor (Targum; Rashi). Kimhi, however, does not
regard shevi as a verb, but as a noun. Compare "the captives [shevi], the booty" in Num. 31:12.
On this basis, the phrase should be rendered: "O captive, Jerusalem." This (masculine) noun
would thus be a variant of the parallel line, "O captive one [shivyah], Fair Zion" (Isa. 52:3),
where another form of the noun (feminine) occurs.
4.Mypeople went down / To Egypt to sojourn there The term "sojourn" (la-gur) recalls
the statement of Joseph's brothers to Pharaoh about their residence in Egypt (Gen. 47:4) and
the liturgical recitation in Deut. 26:5—now the core of the Passover haggadah elaboration.
6. My people shall leam My name This phrase has been traditionally understood to
mean that when the prophecies of redemption are fulfilled and God will be manifest as a redeemer
(Ibn Ezra), the people shall know that He fulfills the words (Targum; Rashi) spoken in His name
by His prophets (Kimhi). The expression is thus a variant of "and all mankind shall know that
I the LORD am your Savior" (Isa. 4 9 : 2 6 ) .
8. For every eye shall behold the LORD'S -return An expression of the concrete experience
of God's might (Targum Jonathan; Abravanel), echoing Num. 14:14 (Ibn Ezra). In both cases,
the reference is associated with God's guiding presence (Num. 14:14; Isa. 52:12). The direct
public witness to God's advent to Zion also figures in Isa. 40:5.
10. The LORD will bare His holy arm A mythic image depicting divine power, as at the
creation and the Exodus. Such an arousal of the divine arm was invoked in Isa. 51:9-10. 1 1
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 1 4
11. Keep pure... You who bear the vessels oftheLoRD Compare Ezra 1:7-8; 5:14-15:
"King Cyrus . . . released the vessels of the LORD'S house which Nebuchadnezzar had taken away
from Jerusalem . . ." [Transl.].
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings from this collection (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah contains a series of promises and assurances to Zion and her inhabitants. The
city had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E., and much of the population went into
exile. A major change occurred shortly after Cyrus the Mede conquered Babylon and issued a
proclamation (in 538 B.C.E.) that allowed subject populations to restore their religious heritage
and return to their homeland. 1 The present prophecy follows that occasion, and is marked by
an exhortation to Zion to rejoice—since she will soon be rebuilt and repopulated. Assurance is
provided in the name of "the LORD your Redeemer" (Isa. 54:8). In addition, God's new cov-
enant (berit) of reconciliation is compared to His ancient pact with Noah after the flood. lust as
that oath promised the end of universal destruction, Zion is now promised an end to its present
desolation. This word of assurance is given by "the LORD, who takes you back in love" (v. 10).
This prophecy serves as the fifth of seven haftarot of consolation recited weekly after the fast
of Tisha b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 54:1. children ofthe wifeforlom The juxtaposition in w. 1 and 2 - 6 of a "forlorn"
(shomemah) or "forsaken" ('azuvah) wife with an "espoused" bride (be'ulah) is a motif also found
in Isa. 62:4-5 and 12. The presentation of God as bo'alayikh, the one who "will espouse you"
(54:5), is echoed in 62:4-5. The terminology has roots in Pentateuchal law (Deut. 24:1) and
was used by other prophets as well (see Jer. 3:14, following the marriage imagery in 3:1, 6-10). 4
The form bodlayikh is a plural with the sense of a singular (Ibn Bal'am). 5
3. -nations That is, the foreigners who had occupied regions from which Israelites had
been exiled (cf. 2 Kings 17:24) [Transl.].
6-8. The reference to Israel as "wife ofhis youth" (ne'urim) recalls the terminology in
other uses of the marriage motif in prophetic literature (Hos. 2:17; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 23:8, 19).
The word hesed alludes to the covenant response found also in Hos. 2:21 and Jer. 2:2. The
word conveys the idea of "loyalty" and commitment (cf. Isa. 54:10; 2 Sam. 7:15; Ps. 89:34).
Through hesed, one deals faithfully or keeps faith with another; it is so used of divine-human and
interpersonalrelationships (Deut. 5:10; 1 Sam. 20:8). 6
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH216
7. For a little while Hebrew be-rega' katon. The brief (katon) abandonment is juxtaposed
to the length (gedolah) of reconciliation (Kimhi). But this leaves a broken parallelism ("little while"
/ "vast love"). Possibly the word should be read be-roga"with anger." Ibn Ezra supported this
solution on the basis of the resulting parallelism: "with a little anger" contrasted to "vast anger." 7
This would yield a symmetry between verses 7 and 8, in accord with Kimhi's sense that in verse
8 the prophet "repeated the theme in different words."
8. In slight anger, for a moment The Hebrew be-shetzef ketzef is difficult. The word
ketzef is unknown and interpreted by context. "Slight anger" follows the Targum. Rashi adduces
R. Menahem ben Helbo's interpretation of "fury" 8 and the rendering of Dunash ibn Labrat as
"for a moment," which is "just like 'for a little while I forsook you. '" The same point is made
by Kimhi. 9 NIPS produces a double rendition.
9. like the waters ofNoah This follows the received text, which has two separate words:
ki mey. Kinihi notes that other manuscripts read one word,fe'-jywey,"like the days of [Noah]."
This reading is presupposed by the Targum and Septuagint. Ibn Ezra and Kimhi blend both
readings when they observe that the oath refers to the Flood in the days of Noah. Rashi cor-
rectly notes that the second half of the verse is explanatory. This understanding supports the
Masoretic reading.
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH60:l-22
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 60:1-22
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions of Isaiah 4 0 - 6 6 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 4 0 - 6 6 " in "Overview
ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks to the several haftarah
readings from this collection (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah announces the wondrous restoration of Zion, illumined by divine light and
filled with worldly splendor. This illumination is nothing less God's redemptive Presence and
redemption, and the munificence is the gift of the nations who had formerly oppressed the city
and its inhabitants. The prophecy is marked by a universal vision and the expectation of physical
and spiritual transformation.
The prophet speaks these words of hope sometime after Cyrus the Mede has conquered
Babylon and issued an edict (in 5 3 8 B.C.E.) that allows the ludean exiles (among other subject
populations) to return to their homeland and restore their religious heritage. 1 We are told that
Zion will be called "the city of the L O R D " (Isa. 6 0 : 1 4 ) , and its ancient Sanctuary will be adorned
by the majestic trees of Lebanon.
217 HAFTARAH FORKI TETZE'
This prophecy is the sixth of seven haftarot of consolation recited weekly after the fast of
Tisha b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned. 2 The present reading calls upon Zion to
"arise" from its sorrowful state (Isa. 60:1)—an appeal also found elsewhere in this collection
(51:17; 52:2). 3
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH218
gives Isaiah's words a new national application. 4 Indeed, his vision of redemption as a heavenly
and enduring illumination marks a new moment in biblical theology.5
The manifold splendor to come is also marked by terms of glory. Thus, through the gifts
brought to the Temple, God "will add glory S^apha'er] to My glorious House [beit tiph'artiY
(Isa. 60:7), and will "glorify [le-pha}er] the place where My feet rest" (v. 13). Like doves to their
cotes, ships laden with gold will bring their wealth to Zion—the city that God "has glorified"
{phe'amkh [v. 9]). Restored and glorified, Jerusalem will "no longer . . . need the sun for light by
day . . . for the L O R D shall be your light everlasting. Your God shall be your glory [le-tiph'artekh]"
(v. 19). At this time, Israel, the shoot that God has planted, will truly be the "handiwork in which
I glory [le-hitpa'erY (v.21).
The foci of the redemption are God, Zion, the Temple, and Israel. Each shall be glorified by
God and permanently transformed. The idiom that marks this new reality is lo}'od, "no more."
"No more" (lo} 'od) shall the cry of "wrack and ruin" be at hand (Isa. 60:18); and "no longer"
(lo} 'od) shall Zion need an earthly sun (v. 19)—for the Lord shall be her shining glory. "Your
sun shall set no more [lo} 'od], your moon shall no more [lo} 'od] withdraw; for the L O R D shall be
a light to you forever" (v. 20). This expectation of renewal and permanence seals the prophet's
words and points to a new and transformed future.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 60:l-2.Arise, shine, for your light has dawned This proclamation is dominated
by verbal plays and repetitions. Note the assonance between }ori (shine), 'or (light), andyem'eh
(be seen). See also verses 4-5. A similar assonance is found in Isa. 9:1, "The people that walked
in darkness have seen [rayu] a brilliant light [^or]." This is one of several links between the earlier
and later sections of the Book oflsaiah, suggesting that the oracles are about to be fulfilled.^ 6
Note also the link between nagah (shine) i n 9 : l and nogah (shining) in60:3.
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH61:10-63:9
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 61:10-63:9
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH220
Haftarah for Nitzavim—Va-yelekh ^VO^Xl
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH61:10-63:9
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 61:10-63:9
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions of Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks to the several haftarah
readings from this collection (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah opens with the exultation of Zion after generations of desolation and exile.
The onset of redemption is dramatized by the advent of the Lord to Zion, after the defeat of
Israel's enemies; His oath proclaims that never again shall Israel suffer ignominy or defeat.
Rather, Zion and her environs shall be espoused by God, who shall rejoice over them like a
bridegroom. In a poignant climax, God's enduring care for Israel is proclaimed. In times past,
"He was their Deliverer. In all their troubles He was troubled . . . . In His love and pity He
Himself redeemed them, raised them, and exalted them all the days of old" (Isa. 63:8-9). A
renewal of this beneficence is the theme of this haftarah, charging every verse with confident
expectation. The restored nation shall be called "The Holy People," and Zion "Sought Out,
A City N o t Forsaken" (62:12).
Isaiah 61:10-63:9 brings to a conclusion the liturgical cycle of seven weekly haftarot of
consolation recited after the fast of Tisha b'Av, when the destruction of Zion is mourned. 1 It is
replete with themes and phrases from the previous readings.
The haftarah develops through a succession of speeches that move from hopeful expectation to
thanksgiving. At the beginning, either Zion (Targum Jonathan) or the nation personified (Ibn
Ezra) speaks of rejoicing in the Lord, who has clothed her with garments of triumph. The tone
is one of anticipation—marked by the future tense of the verbs "rejoice" and "exult" (sos }asis\
tagel) and through verbs announcing growth and sprouting (totzi,:! tatzmiah; yatzmiah). Until
that time, the prophet states that both he and the watchmen set over Jerusalem shall "not be
silent" (Isa. 62:1, 6). 2 The content of their words is not given and may include both the mourn-
ing for Zion and the appeal for its redemption. 3 The watchmen are called the Lord's mazkirim,
or "remembrancers"—a title that may refer to their role in recalling divine deeds in the past or
reminding God o f H i s vanquished city (see Text and Comments).
The future hope is intensified by subsequent revelations. The prophet delivers two divine
speeches. The first enunciates God's oath promising Israel new bounty, when she shall reap what
she sows and bring it to the Temple (Isa. 62:8-9). The second speech announces God's imminent
advent and giving the people and Zion new names (62:11-12). This advent is then portrayed
through a spectacular manifestation of God in His blood-spattered garments (63:2-6). This
depiction of violent rage against Israel's enemies is juxtaposed to a prayer of thanksgiving for
God's ongoing "mercy," "kindness," "love," and "pity" for His people (63:7-9). The polarities
of divine destruction and care are starkly drawn: what is doom for the outsider is deliverance
for Zion and Israel.
The transition from Zion's hope to God's advent is marked by the motif of the garment. At
the outset, the city exclaims that God "has clothed me with garments of triumph [bigdeiyesha^],
wrapped me in a robe of victory [me'il tzedakah]" (Isa. 61:10). The significance of these garments
is extended through their comparison with the turban of a bridegroom and the finery of a bride
(61:10) and also the crown and diadem of royalty (62:3). This new reality is further expressed by
the divine garments of victory—the "crimsoned garments [hamutz begadim]" of God, "majestic
in attire [hadur bi-lvusho]" (63:1). The fate of Zion is thus figuratively correlated with acts of
divine victory, thereby linking the two ends of the haftarah.
The marital imagery conveyed through the garments of bridegroom and bride is further
developed in the prophets subsequent word of encouragement. God shall take back His city and
land—espousing the one and taking delight in the other—as a bridegroom does his bride (Isa.
62:4-5). This correlation is not simply left to a social simile ("as a youth espouses a maiden,
your sons shall espouse you"), but is repeated in bold theological terms: "And as a bridegroom
rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you" (62:5). The victory and adornment thus
constitute God's renewed bond of marital commitment and care—for His city and His people.
The new reality begets new names. The prophet announces that "you shall be called by a
new name which the L O R D Himself shall bestow . . . . Nevermore shall you be called 'Forsaken'
['azuvah], nor shall your land be called 'Desolate'; but you shall be called 'I delight in her [heftzi
vah]; and your land 'Espoused \^eculah]y" (Isa. 62:2, 4). This terminology links the poles of
divorce ('azuvah; cf. Isa. 54:6 and 60:15) 4 and marriage (be'ulah; cf. Isa. 62:5 and Deut. 24:
1) to Zion's ongoing fear that "the L O R D has forsaken me ['azavani]" (Isa. 49:14) and God's
assertion of an enduring relationship. As elsewhere in this cycle of consolations, the spectre of
divorce is denied. 5
The other new names reinforce the transformed physical and spiritual reality at hand. The
people shall also be called "The Holy People, the Redeemed of the L O R D " and Zion shall be renamed
COMMENTS
Isaiah 62:1. For the sake of Zion I will not be silent This is apparently the word of the
prophet, who reports that the people shall receive a new name "which the L O R D Himself shall
bestow" (v. 2) and that they shall be a "glorious crown in the hand of the L O R D " (v. 3). 6 Neverthe-
less, Ibn Ezra and Kimhi suggest that the speaker is God. Ibn Ezra reports a further suggestion
identifying the voice with the captive people. This statement, that the speaker will not be silent
('ehesheh) until the divine victory, anticipates verses 6-7, where we learn of appointed watchmen
who shall also not be silent (yehesheh) until God establishes lerusalem again. The nature of the
speakers words in verse 1 is not indicated.
4. "Forsaken" Hebrew 'azuvah. This negative term parallels the sobriquet "Desolate"
and indicates God's abandonment of the city and people—a situation lamented in Lam. 5:20 and
Isa. 49:14. The term also indicates "divorced" and thus serves as the counterpart to the marriage
similes and the new names of "Espoused" (be'ulah) and "I delight in her." For similar uses of
'azuvah (abandoned) as divorced, see Isa. 60:15, where it is found together withsenu'ah (rejected)
—a legal term for divorce (cf. Deut. 24:3). Compare also Isa. 54:5-6, where Zion is 'azuvah but
shall be restored by God, the one who "will espouse you" (bo'alayikh; cf. Deut. 24:1). 7
6. Oyou... •remembrancers Hebrew ha-mazkirim. The force of the prefix ha-is ambigu-
ous. If it is connected to the previous clause, then it should be construed as referring to those
"who are . . . remembrancers" (cf. R. Isaiah di Trani). Alternatively, it introduces a new addressee
and functions as an invocative ("O you"). So NIPS and already R. ludah ibn Bal'am.8
The "remembrancers" may refer to the watchmen [Transl.], or to the "mourners in Zion"
mentioned in Isa. 61:3, or to those others who reminded God of His promises to Israel and of
Israel's present state. 9 According to 1 Chron. 16:4, the Levites had the function to "remind/
invoke [le-hazkir], to praise, and to extol the L O R D God oflsrael." This would have included the
recounting of divine actions and beneficences, as in Isa. 63:7, "I will recount azkir] the kind
acts of the L O R D . " According to Rava bar Sheila, these remembrancers said: "You will surely
arise and take pity on Zion" (Ps. 102:14); while according to Rav Nahman bar Isaac, they said:
"The L O R D rebuilds lerusalem; He gathers in the exiles oflsrael" (Ps. 147:2) (B. Menahot 87a).
Compare R. Eliezer of Beaugency, who said that they remind God of His "love of lerusalem and
her desolation, that He take pity over her, as [in the verse] 'How long will You withhold pardon
from lerusalem' by Zechariah" (Zech. 1:12).
8. His mighty arm The oath taken by God by His own arm anticipates the destruction
"wrought" by His "own arm" (Isa. 63:5). Earlier, the prophet had appealed to a renewal of divine
might, symbolized by His arm (51:9).
10. Pass through,pass through A reformulation of the "highway" theme in Isa. 40:3. In
the former case, the preparation is for the divine advent; here the expectation is for the return of
the people from captivity. In both texts, God comes with His "recompense" (see Isa. 40:10 and 62:
11). Rabbinic tradition gave the image of removing stumbling blocks a moral and spiritual sense,
thereby indicating the human action required for redemption (Numbers Rabbah 15:16).
11. •reward. .. •recompense The reward and recompense to the cities of ludah; compare
ler. 31:14 and 16 [Transl.].
12.And they shall be called The people are called "The Holy People" ('am ha-kodesh),
which is an intensification of the description in Deut. 7:6 ('am kadosh, "holy people"). The new
name for Zion, "A City N o t Forsaken," recalls Isa. 54:6 and 62:4.
223 HAFTARAH FOR NITZAVIM—VA-YELEKH
Isaiah 63:1. Who is this comingfrom Edom In context, the query appears to be that of
the watchmen on the walls (62:6), awaiting the advent of the Lord.
3-5. The imagery of God trampling a vineyard and bespattered with blood (63:2-3) is
connected with Edom and Bozrah (v. 1) through puns on the toponyms: me-'edom (from Edom)
sounds like me'udam (reddened; cf. v. 2), and mi-botzmh (from Bozrah) sounds like mi-botzer
(from picking grapes). A similar sense is suggested by the Septuagint. Compare also the imagery
in Jeremiah's oracle against Edom (Jer. 49:9): "if vintagers [botzrim] were to come upon you."
This image of a violent divine advent is a variant of the theme and terminology in 59:16-18.
Edom's downfall is attributed here to divine vengeance for evil conduct and because of
Israel's merit (Rashi). In rabbinic tradition, Edom is a symbol for Rome and Christendom (see
Ibn Ezra). 10 This identification gave the haftarah ongoing relevance in late antiquity and the
Middle Ages.11
7-9. This is the first part of a hymn of praise extolling divine favor. The concluding part
refers to Israelite rebellion and divine disfavor, followed by the eventual return of God's grace
(w. 10-14). Only the positive first part is used in the haftarah.
8-9. The Masoretic text and cantillation notes suggest a reading that refers to God
who "was their Deliverer" and which then says that "In all their troubles He [lo, according to
the keri, or text as traditionally "read"] was troubled" (w. 8b-9a). After this are two apparently
contradictory remarks: first, that "the angel of His Presence delivered them," and then, that God
"Himselfredeemed them" (v.9).
By contrast, the Septuagint version reflects a Hebrew text that reads verses 8b-9a as a continu-
ous thought: "He was their Deliverer in all their troubles; no [reading /o']12 angel or messenger
[was with Him], [but] His own Presence delivered them." This version is characterized by a clear
stylistic structure. Note that the first and last phrases are correlated through the noun moshi'a
(Deliverer) and the verb hoshi'am ("delivered them"); while the middle two phrases echo each
other through the verb tzamtam (their troubles) and (presumably) the nountezV(angel; instead
of the vocalization tzar, "was troubled," found in the Masoretic version). Moreover, there is a
singular emphasis on God's exclusive deliverance—with no reference to the intermediate activity
of an angel. This theology is similar to that found in the Passover haggadah and the statement
there that God alone delivered the nation from Egypt—"I and no angel, I and no messenger."13
The foregoing account of an exclusive divine redemption is compromised somewhat in our
Masoretic text, due to the intrusion into it of a reading that speaks of divine sorrow during the
sorrows of Israel. Such a theology had an active midrashic life—particularly in its portrayal of
God's heavenly participation in Israel's Egyptian servitude14 or the Shekhinah's sorrow on earth
during the period of Israel's exile.15 This later theology presumably influenced the copying of
the text, resulting in the version lo (Him) and the aforementioned contradiction concerning the
agents of deliverance.
For the haftarah for Ha'azinu on Shabbat Shuvah, see the haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah.
For the contents and theology of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from Samuel (listed
in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah is King David's great hymn of victory and thanks to God, for having "saved him
from the hands of all his enemies and from the hands of Saul" (2 Sam. 22:1). The designation
"after" marks the hymn as a retrospective account, even as the phrase "all his enemies" gives the
piece a cumulative tone. The style is charged with mythic imagery: God is portrayed as a mighty
Lord of Battles—storming to the aid of human armies with the arrows of heaven. The hymn
also conveys a deep religious spirit, replete with theological sensibilities found in other biblical
prayers. 1 It is virtually identical with Psalm 18, save for minor textual variations.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
David's hymn addresses God as "my crag" (snl'i), "my fastness" (metzuda-ti), "my deliverer"
(:mefalti), and "the rock" (tzuri). Similar terms occur in other biblical prayers, which suggests
that this language served as a formulaic means of addressing God as a dependable savior (cf.
Psalms 61 and 71). The most notable difference between such prayers and 2 Samuel 22 is that
the former beseech God's intervention and promises to recite hymns of thanksgiving for victories
to come (Pss. 61:9; 71:18-19, 23-24). By contrast, David's song is a recitation of thanksgiv-
ing—which concludes with the words: "For this I sing Your praise among the nations / And
hymn Your name" (2 Sam. 22:50).
Of the various terms used for God's invincible protection, the word tzur (rock) is notable. It
recurs in various forms: in neutral designations of God as a sheltering rock (2 Sam. 22:3) and as
a source of personal safety ("my rock" [v. 47]), but also in formulations that equate the epithet
with God Himself. "Who is a rock except God . . .?" asks David at one point (v. 32), and later
he praises his Lord with the words "Exalted be God, the rock / Who gives me victory" (v. 47).
Clearly, the primordial fastness of mountain rocks was the hymnist's preferred metaphor for
inviolable stability on earth. Standing firm with the face of eternity, the shadow of their presence
suggests to him something of God's everlasting power.
The image of God as a tzur stands at one pole of the hymn, marking a movement of religious
consciousness from earth to heaven. At the other pole is the image of God as a heavenly being
who descends upon the wings of the storm clouds to save His people on earth. This figure is not
telluric but atmospheric—deriving from ancient Near Eastern depictions of storm gods riding
to battle upon their heavenly chariots. In the cosmic arsenal are swirling blasts of wind that stir
the depths and "expose" the "bed of the sea" (2 Sam. 22:16), fiery bolts that furiously fly like
arrows out of dark thunderheads (w. 10-12, 15), and awesome peals of thunder that bark out
an earth-shattering divine voice (v. 14). In this manner did the Lord also rescue his people at
the Reed Sea, when He blasted the waters with the wind of His fury and uncovered the dry bed
below (Exod. 15:8, 19); and likewise did the prophet Habakkuk envision God's advent to save
Israel in later days (Hab. 3:8-10). 2 David's hymn excels in these depictions. Their dramatic vitality
contrasts sharply with the scene of stability established by the mountain rocks at the beginning of
the hymn. Their fusion in this song produces a visual and visceral tension that draws the reader
toward the vastness of God's power that the speaker celebrates.
Other cultural expressions may be detected in this hymn. Especially notable is the language
of confession found in 2 Sam. 22:21-32. 3 Several strands are interwoven. The first comprises
verses 21-25. In this unit, David announces that the Lord has rewarded him according to his
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH226
merit and the purity o f h i s deeds (w. 21, 24-25). Within this framing repetition, the speaker
says how he has fulfilled God's laws and guarded himself from sin. The whole unit has the
character of a liturgical proclamation, similar to the recitation of proper behaviors intoned by
pilgrims to God's Temple in Psalm 15. Significant in this regard is the speakers personal state-
ment about the "cleanness" ofhis hands and his "purity" (bor) (w. 21, 25) and that he has "been
blameless \tamim~Y before the Lord (v. 24). These words are followed by the more impersonal
remark that "with the blameless \tamim\ hero [You (God) deal] blamelessly \tittamamY and
"with the pure [navar] You act in purity \tittavar\" (w. 26-27) —but "with the perverse You
are wily . . . and You look with scorn on the haughty" (w. 27-28). This sequence (w. 21-25
+ 26-28) reinforces the connection between a general theology of reward and punishment
and its specific manifestation in David's life, "according to [his] merit" (v. 21). Echoing this
passage, David concludes his thanksgiving with the overall statement that "The way of God
is perfect \tamimY (v. 31) and then says, more personally, that the Lord has "kept my path
secure [tamim]n (v. 33).
In thanks for God's beneficence, David poses a rhetorical question: "[W]ho is a god except
the LORD, / Who is a rock except God . . .?" (2 Sam. 22:32). At first sight, this query recalls
the words ofMoses in the midst ofhis own hymn of thanksgiving: "Who is like You, O LORD,
among the celestials; / Who is like You, majestic in holiness, / Awesome in splendor, working
wonders!" (Exod. 15:11). However, a more compelling parallel may be found in Hannah's song
of thanksgiving. Grateful to God for granting her a son, as she desired, Hannah exults "There
is no holy one like the LORD, / Truly, there is none beside You; / There is no rock like our God"
(1 Sam. 2:2). 4
The similarity between David's and Hannah's songs is even more precise. For one thing, Han-
nah's hymn emphasizes God as one who breaks the bows of the mighty in battle (1 Sam. 2:4, 10)
and speaks of God who "will thunder against [His foes] in the heavens" (v. 10). Both themes recur
in 2 Samuel 22. In addition, there is a striking similarity to the conclusion of both hymns. As noted,
David's words end with a shift to a more impersonal praise: "Tower of victory to His king [malko],
/ W h o deals graciously with His anointed [meshiho],/ With David and his offspring evermore" (2
Sam. 22:51). In a comparable manner, Hannah's hymn also ends in praise of God, who "will give
power to His king [malko],/And triumph to His anointed one [meshiho]" (1 Sam. 2:10). 5
Both codas look to a messianic future. In the haftarah, the hope is for God's beneficence upon
David's heirs. Initially, this meant the royal dynasty of King David. But with time, as the term
for God's "anointed one" (meshiho) came to connote the mashiah (or "messiah" figure) expected
in the end of days, David's song took on an eschatological expectation. One may assume that the
rabbinic circles who selected David's hymn as a haftarah had this thought in mind. Moreover, the
haftarah reminds the people that God will "deal loyally" with "the loyal" (2 Sam. 22:26) and "with
the pure" He will "act in purity" (v. 27). A life of spiritual perfection is thus the religious path
offered later readers of the hymn, who may place their hope in a future vindication by God.
COMMENTS
2 Samuel 22:1. after the LORD ... all his enemies According to medieval tradition, David
recited this song in his old age, in thanks to God for all his kindness and protection (Rashi,
Kimhi). A midrash notes ten enemies of David and suggests that the ten expressions of praise in
Psalm 147 correspond to each of them (Yalkut Shimoni 2, 2 Samuel, 157).
5. Flood imagery ("breakers"; "torrents" [v. 6]) combines with figures of hunting
("snares"; "coils" or "traps" [v. 6]) to express the speaker's sense of overpowering and hidden
dangers. Before his foes, he is "encompassed," "terrified," "encircled," and "engulfed" (w. 5-6).
The figure of Death (mavet) in verses 5 and 6 retains a personified quality, echoing the ancient
Canaanite godMot (Death). Such a mythological trace recurs in Isa. 25:8 and ler. 9:20. 6 The other
figures of the netherworld mentioned by David in 2 Sam. 22:5-6 are Belial and Sheol. lob (in
lob 26:5-6) also speaks of the Rephaim (or shades) and of Abaddon (the realm of Abandon).
227 HAFTARAH FOR HA'AZINU
The torrents ofBelial This refers to the powers of the netherworld; "Belial" functions
like "Death" in this verse and "Sheol" in the next.
8-16. For the mythic imagery used here and elsewhere in Scripture, see the discussion
in Content and Meaning; see also the haftarah for the second day of Shavuot (Hab. 3:1-19).
10. He bent the sky Despite the figurative imagery, commentators have attempted to
correlate the hymn with events in David's life. Rashi saw a reference in this verse to David's de-
feat of the Philistines and in verse 12 to the pillar of cloud that protected Israel after the Exodus
(Exod. 14:19). By contrast, Gersonides reads these phrases as figures for God's intervention for
and protection of David. Such readings historicize (and neutralize) the mythic language of the
song.
11. He was seen Hebrew va-yem'. The version ofthe song in Ps. 18:11 has va-yede', mean-
ing "gliding" or "swooping." The latter reading is more appropriate to the atmospheric figures
used here. The visual term found in the Masoretic text may be the result of a small orthographic
error or an attempt to bring this imagery into line with others where God is manifest upon His
heavenly chariot (Exod. 24:10; Ezek. 1:26). God rides upon His heavenly chariot in Pss. 68:34
and 104:3. A full list of the variant readings in "the song of Psalms" and the "song of Samuel"
was compiled by the Sages and is recorded in Massekhet Soferim 6:8. 7
15. them That is, the enemies in verse 4 [Transl.].
17. mightywaters Compare verse 5 [Transl.].
33. Who kept my path secure The Hebrew, va-yater tamim darki, is difficult. Rashi and
Kimhi understood the verb va-yater in the sense of unfettering; but Ps. 18:33 preserves the
preferable reading va-yitten, "He established" or "made."
36.And Yourprovidence has made megreat The Hebrew, va-dnotekha tarbeni, is difficult,
literally yielding something like "and Your answer [to my prayer] has raised me up." Psalm 18:
36 reads ve-dnvatkha tarbeni, "and Your humility has raised me up" (NJPS: "Your providence
has made me great"). But the image of divine humility is not the theme of this song, 8 and Rashi
and Ibn Ezra therefore construed the phrase to refer to the humility that God gave the speaker.
This is also Rashi's understanding of the formulation in 2 Sam. 22:36. The problem is resolved
by the preferable reading 'ezratkha in the Qumran scrolls (4QSam a ), meaning "Your help" or
"valor." The combination in the verse of "Your protection" or "salvation" {yishe'kha) with "Your
help" Cezratkha) would replicate a common pairing of these terms (see Josh. 10:6; Ps. 79:9).
44. peoples So some manuscripts and the Septuagint; most manuscripts and the printed
editions read "my people" [Transl.].
51. Tower of victory This follows the keri, or text as recited, migdol (tower); the ketiv,
or text as written, preserves magdil and reads, "He accords great victories" (also Ps. 18:51).
The image of God as a tower does not occur earlier in the song but is not out of keeping with
it. Nevertheless, one would expect a verbal form here, complementing the sequel "Who deals
graciously." Both the keri and ketiv readings are preserved liturgically, at the close of the full Grace
after Meals; the ketiv is recited on weekdays, the keri on Sabbaths and festivals.
dealsgraciously As promised (2 Sam. 7:15).
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D PARASHAH
The song ofMoses in Deuteronomy 32 and David's song of thanksgiving in the haftarah praise
God's providence in history. They are each spoken near the end of a hero's life and thus each
closes an era during which that leader was the dominant figure. The main distinction between
the two compositions is one of focus. Moses' song reviews God's past beneficences for the entire
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH228
nation (Deut. 3 2 : 7 - 1 4 ) , while David's prayer thanks God for personal help against his enemies.
In addition, Moses chides the people for their rebellions against their divine protector (Deut.
3 2 : 1 5 - 1 8 ) and in this context portrays God as one who requites sinners with vengeance and
doom (Deut. 3 2 : 1 9 - 4 3 ) . By contrast, David believes that God's benefits to him are rewards for
his faithful service and obedience ("The L O R D has rewarded me according to my merit" [ 2 Sam.
2 2 : 2 1 ] ) . Divine vengeance is against His enemies ( 2 Sam. 2 2 : 4 1 ) .
Despite the differences between the songs, both are bound by common theological images
and vocabulary. Most notable is the emphasis on integrity, blamelessness, and perfection through
the term tamim, and on stability, power, and protection through the word tzur. Thus, in Moses'
song, God is proclaimed at the outset as "The Rock!—His deeds are perfect" (tzur tamimpo'olo
[Deut. 3 2 : 4 ] ) , whereas faithless Israel is called a "crooked, perverse generation" (dor 'ikkesh u-
phetaltol [v. 5]) that "spurned the Rock [tzur] o f h i s support" (v. 15) and "neglected the Rock
[tzur] that begot" them (v. 18). Therefore will God, "their Rock" (tzumm [v. 30]), give them
over to their enemies—"for their rock [tzumm] is not like our Rock [tzureinu]" (v. 31). Israel
has "sought refuge" in false gods (tzur hasayu [v. 37]) and will be duly punished. 9
David echoes this theology from his own standpoint. He too glorifies God as a "rock" (2
Sam. 2 2 : 4 7 ) whose way is "perfect" (tamim [v. 3 1 ] ) and juxtaposes this "rock" to all other gods
(v. 32). But no falsehood or faithlessness escapes his lips. God is for him "the rock wherein I
take shelter" (tzurieheseh bo [v. 3]), the one to whom he has "been blameless" (tamim [v. 24]).
Indeed, David proclaims God as acting "blamelessly" with the "blameless hero" ('imgibbor ta-
mim tittamam [v. 26]), but "with the perverse" He is "wily" (ve-'im 'ikkesh tittapal [v. 27]). As
a reward for his piety, God has "kept" David's path "secure" (tamim [v. 33]) and crowned him
with success and victory.
These similarities are striking and reflect a common theology of God as a mighty and sus-
taining power, whose way is tamim. David maintains allegiance to his divine source and neither
forgets the rock of his strength nor rebels through success or perversity. By contrast, the people
ofMoses turn against God—and this condemns them to doom. The contrast could not be more
stark. Indeed, through the liturgical juxtaposition of this haftarah an&pamshah, the reader is faced
with two religious paths: a God-centered way of remembrance and humility, and a self-centered
way of forgetfulness and pride. Every spiritual seeker stands before this duality.
ASHKENAZIM J O S H U A l : l - 1 8
SEPHARDIM JOSHUA 1:1-9
ASHKENAZIM ISAIAH66:l-24
SEPHARDIM ISAIAH 66:1-24
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their
historical setting and theological concerns, see the "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in
"Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks to the several
haftarah readings from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is a collection of diverse prophecies of judgment and salvation from a late section
of the Book of Isaiah. The reference to the building of the new Temple (66:1) reflects the concerns
of the restoration period, after an edict by Cyrus the Mede (in 538 B.C.E.) permitted the ludean
exiles in Babylon to return to their homeland and renew their religious heritage. 1 More precisely,
the period in question may be closer to 520 B.C.E., when discussions of rebuilding the Temple
intensified within the postexilic community (see Haggai 1-2). Visions of the future shrine also
preoccupied Ezekiel's attention (Ezekiel 40-48), and specific guidelines are found there (chapter
44) regarding the role of priests and foreigners in the cultic worship to be reestablished. Other
late prophecies in the Book of Isaiah reflected this issue and took a more inclusive approach to
the ritual involvement of foreigners or to persons whose cultic participation was prohibited ac-
cording to Pentateuchal law (Isaiah 56). 2 The present haftarah adopts just such a position.
At the same time, the haftarah condemns hypocritical and false worship and projects a punish-
ment of divine fire for this behavior. Occurring in the final chapter of the Book of Isaiah, these
condemnations recall the acts and attitudes rejected in the opening chapter of the work. 3 Numer-
ous verbal and thematic links connect these chapters (Isaiah 1 and 66) and suggest a deliberate
editorial intent. The haftarah also brings to climactic expression the prophecies of consolation
begun in Isaiah 40—particularly those emphasizing the repopulation of Zion and the ingathering
there of Israel and the nations (cf. Isaiah 54 and 60). This grand ingathering will continue into
the future, when "new moon after new moon, and sabbath after sabbath, all flesh shall come to
worship Me" (Isa. 66:23). In anticipation of that eschatological event, this prophecy is recited
when the New Moon (Rosh Hodesh) falls on a Sabbath day.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The various prophecies of the haftarah are integrated by a symmetrical structure. Iwo frames
enclose a centerpiece of consolation for Zion. Starting with the outermost frame, we note at the
outset God's proclamation of His omnipresent majesty throughout the heavens and earth and
the incapacity of any earthly Temple to contain Him (Isa. 66:1). This theme is balanced at the
conclusion by another reference to the heavens and earth—this time a new creation that God will
make as a sign of Israel's permanence (v. 22) and by a prophecy of the ingathering of all nations
to the rebuilt Temple (v. 23). Thus the opening statement about the inability of mortal man to
build a Temple for God is counterpointed at the end by the expectation of Temple worship by
"all flesh" (v. 23) —announced and guaranteed by God Himself.
Within this framework, whose overall theme is the transcendence of God and His worship,
lies a second topic: God's involvement with the world, through acts of judgment against those
who would reject Him and perform improper rites (Isa. 66:3, 17). As described, divine wrath
erupts from the Temple itself (v. 6) and consumes its victims in "flaming fire" (v. 15). The martial
imagery used here frames and contrasts the themes of divine grace and human joy at the center
of the haftarah (w. 7-14). The key figures are those of birth (w. 7-9), suckling (w. 11), and
maternal care (v. 13). Zion shall bear her children without pain and nurture her mourners with
delight—through God's help, in His role as a beneficent midwife who brings on labor and easy
birth (v. 9). This feminine focus extends to God's care for the nation, giving them comfort "as
a mother comforts her son" (v. 13). Such divine imagery tempers the figures of male rage and
complements attributes of stern justice with those of mercy for the faithful. Punishment and
nurturance are the theological signs of the new age. For the sinner, this means death; while for
the favored of God, birth and life are the horizon ofhope.
The haftarah thus mediates between several spatial poles, each with its own theological dimen-
sion. The first of these is the contrast between God's omnipresence and the human desire for
His localization in an earthly shrine. As the prophecies unfold, the initial rejection of a dwelling
fit for the Lord of all Creation gives way to a vision of the future Temple as a place of universal
worship. In the process, the spatial periphery of the diaspora is relocated into the center of the
homeland, as the nations bring Israel back to Zion and worship God with them there. The
contrast between the nations and Israel is also overcome through their joint pilgrimage to Zion
and shared worship at the sacred shrine. In the prophet's universalist vision, the Temple is the
symbol and site of divine dominion and ecumenism. For him, a "House" for all peoples is the
fit dwelling for God.
The theme of universal worship is central to the final chapters of the Book of Isaiah. It is
particularly evident in the polemical inclusion of aliens, or those otherwise disbarred, in the service
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHH A S H A N A H232
of the Temple. For example, Isaiah 56 states that if such persons as eunuchs or foreigners keep
the Sabbath and hold fast to the divine covenant, then they shall be accepted into the precincts
of the Temple. In fact, the eunuchs shall find a dwelling within the walls of the shrine, and the
foreigners shall come to the Temple mount and offer sacrifices on the altar—"for My House
shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples," declares the Lord (56:1-8). 4 Through divine
fiat, older Pentateuchal rules prohibiting the physically maimed and the stranger from access to
the holy shrine are disregarded. 5
This dramatic inclusion of foreigners in Temple worship goes further than other universalist
visions found in Scripture. For example, the great prophecy of Isa. 2:2-4, which envisions all
the nations flowing to Zion in the end of days, projects a scene of divine instruction, justice, and
future peace—but says nothing about shared rituals. Even Solomon's prayer at the dedication
of the First Temple (preserved and found in a late historiographical source) shows significant
reserve. Although the king begins his evocation with a tone of piety that rings close to God's
word in Isa. 66:1 (when he says: "But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their
uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built!" [1 Kings 8:
27]), Solomon extends to foreign pilgrims who shall come to lerusalem in reverence of God the
right of prayer only and makes no mention of sacrificial service (w. 41-43). By the same token,
the postexilic prophecy of Zechariah that enjoins the nations of the earth to come to lerusalem
during the Feast of Booths emphasizes divine adoration and reverence but says nothing about
inclusive worship in the shrine (Zech. 14:16-19).
All this casts into high relief the bold words of Isa. 66:21, found near the end of our haftarah.
They are of a piece with the sentiment found in Isaiah 56 but are fraught with ambiguity—not
all of which are due to syntactical features. It would seem that later factors of transmission also
played a role. The particular line in question comes directly after the account of the ascent of
foreigners to lerusalem, when they bring the exiles of Zion home and devote them in the shrine
"as an offering to the LORD" (v. 20). As we now have it, the ensuing Masoretic Text reads as
follows: "And from them likewise I will take some la-kohanim la-leviyim, said the LORD" (v. 21).
Two questions arise: Who are the people referred to here as "them," and what indeed is the
purpose for which they are taken?
A straightforward reading of the passage leads one to conclude that the people "likewise
[gam]" taken by God into His service include the foreigners of all the nations along with the
returning Israelites. But such a divine word is difficult. For even were we to construe the phrase
la-kohanim la-leviyim to mean "levitical priests" (NIPS), it would be necessary to assume that the
pedigree of exilic priests taken forcedly into exile would have to be searched and the individuals
involved restored to their older service. Such in fact is the position taken by several medieval
commentators, though without explicit textual warrant. However, even this solution does not
blunt the implication that some foreigners would "likewise" be inducted as priestly officiants, and
so the major ritual difficulty is not resolved. Indeed, given that the prophet Ezekiel expressed a
strong contemporary denunciation of the sacral service of foreigners (Ezek. 44:6-14) and that
he allows only the scions of (the priestly line of) Zadok to serve as the legitimate "levitical priests
\loa-kohanim ha-leviyimY in the new Temple (v. 15), it would seem that our Isaianic prophecy
is in fact a polemical response to this position—giving a universalist spin to the very priestly
designation used by Ezekiel for exclusivist purposes.
But if this is the original intent of the prophecy transmitted by the Masoretes, it remains
puzzling from a grammatical perspective. One would have expected that the phrase announcing
the appointment of foreigners "as levitical priests" would have read la-kohanim ha-leviyim, or
"to be ha-kohanim ha-leviyim" For that reason, other medieval commentators construed Isa. 66:
21 as indicating that the foreigners would be taken "for the priests and for the Levites" (OIPS)
—somewhat like the induction of the ancient Gibeonites into menial shrinal service (loshua 9).
But this alternative is also difficult, since there is no conjunction "and" in the text, and Scripture
provides no provision for servants for the Levites. Moreover, the Israelites are not mentioned as
C O M M E N T S
Isaiah 66:1. The heaven is My throne The image of the heavens as God's throne and
the earth as His footstool is one of divine omnipresence and transcendence. This sense of God
in the heavens and beyond is radicalized in Solomon's prayer of dedication for his Temple: "But
will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches [lit., 'the heavens and
the heavens of the heavens'] cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built!" (1
King 8:27). The parallel version of this prayer in 2 Chron. 6:18 begins, "Does God really dwell
with man on earth?" This query is answered in Isa. 66:1-2. After the transcendence of God is
stressed in verse 1, His presence with the "poor and brokenhearted" is emphasized in verse 2.
This is the profound theological balance ofbiblical monotheism (cf. Isa. 57:15).
Elsewhere we find the image of a "footstool" used as figure for the Temple as a whole and the
place of divine indwelling (Ps. 132:7; Lam. 2:1). For his part, Jeremiah envisions a time when
people shall call Jerusalem itself " 'Throne of the LORD,' and all nations shall assemble there, in
the name of the L O R D , at Jerusalem" (Jer. 3:17).
Where... What? These are posed as rhetorical questions. Hebrew }ey zeh is used twice.
The term bears the sense of "where?" (cf. Gen. 4:9) and, given the topic of divine omnipres-
ence, could be translated twice with this connotation (OJPS). It also bears the qualitative sense
of "what kind of}" (cf. Rashi, Kara) 6 and could have this sense in both questions here. NJPS
conveys both meanings, but it would appear that "the same point is repeated" in both cases (Ibn
Ezra, Kimhi).
2. Who is concerned about My word Designating the faithful as hared, "concerned" may
reflect a technical term of the period. Inan early postexilic act, the people "who are concerned
[haredim] over the commandment of our God" are exhorted to make a covenant and to expel
their foreign wives (Ezra 10:3). A desire for divine service is involved (R. Eliezer of Beaugency).
The ensuing reference to "all you who mourned" (mit'abelim) over Jerusalem (Isa. 66:10) may
also have technical overtones, since this group is called "the mourners in [or: of] Zion" avelei
tziyon) in Isa. 61:3.
3. The structure of the condemnation juxtaposes four pair of deeds: the first (of each
pair) is a legitimate cultic act, the second an abomination that the people "have chosen." The
form is difficult. Many moderns have assumed that those who do the proper sacrifices are
"like" those who do the abominations. 7 But this reading presumes an implied comparison
and would only make sense if the cult were condemned outright—a feature not found in these
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H
A N D T H E SPECIAL SABBATH
The haftarah announces that on the occasion of the ingathering oflsrael from exile "all flesh shall
come to worship" the Lord "new moon after new moon" (Isa. 66:23). Therewith, the ancient
New Moon rites (Num. 28:11-15) are given an eschatological and universalist dimension. The
monthly renewal of heavenly light thus comes to symbolize the hope for a future fellowship of
all nations on earth. In antiquity, special feasts marked the sighting of the new moon and the
people were encouraged to attend the event in lerusalem (M. Rosh Hashanah 2:5). According
to a late aggadic tradition, God gave the New Moon festival to women especially, as a reward
for not contributing their jewelry to the making of the Golden Calf (Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 45).
That is, these faithful souls and their descendants are enjoined to observe this day more stringently
than males in this world, so that in the world to come they shall "be renewed \le-hithadesh] like
the new moons [lit., months, hodashim\\ as it is written, 'He satisfies you with good things in
the prime of life ^'ad^yikh, a pun on jewelry], so that your youth is renewed [tithadesh] like the
eagle's' (Ps. 103:5)."
According to lewish mystical tradition, from medieval times on, the waxing and waning
of moonlight reflects the increase and decrease of holiness and unity in the divine and human
realms. The lunar cycle thus symbolizes transcendent truth and is not simply a feature of the
natural order. Already in antiquity, profound cosmic significance was given to sacrificial of-
ferings given at this occasion (B. Hullin 60b), and prayers still recited in the morning .Musaf
service on Rosh Hodesh show the important aspect of atonement that was connected with the
day. By the fifteenth century it became customary to observe a period of fasting and repentance
on the day before the New Moon, a day known in fact as Yom Kippur Katan (Minor Day of
Atonement).
The cycle of the moon has thus offered the opportunity in lewish ritual and spirituality for
a periodic renewal of the one's inner light and wholeness. As the moon is not the source of its
own light, the symbolism of the New Moon invites worshipers to deepen their receptivity to a
higher radiance, so that they may be connected to a divine dimension and reflect it outward into
the world. This is the movement from the private to the social realm. In this respect, the haftarah
for Rosh Hodesh reminds the single self of its commonality with all creatures. Its proclamation
of the cyclic celebration of God by "all flesh" in Zion, "new moon after new moon," is thus a
prophecy of a unified humanity that repeatedly renews itself through ecumenical reciprocity and
common concerns.
ASHKENAZIM ISAMUEL20:18-42
SEPHARDIM I SAMUEL 20:18-42
(Omitted on Shabbat Shekalim and Shabbat Ha-Hodesh; also on Parashat Re'eh in many con-
gregations)
For the contents and theology of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings from Samuel (listed in "Index
in Biblical Passages").
The haftarah occurs within the cycle of narratives depicting the rise of David in national esteem
and his corresponding decline in favor with Saul (ca. 1000 B.C.E.). A S this balance shifts, violence
and intrigue come to the fore. A key factor in this change is Saul's jealousy over David's fame as a
soldier. It is something the king cannot abide and drives him mad with rage. Thus after the defeat
of the Philistines, Saul returns with his troops only to hear the women sing: "Saul has slain his
thousands; David, his tens of thousands!" In the grip of an "evil spirit," Saul throws a spear at
David "thinking to pin [him] to the wall. But David eluded him twice" (1 Sam. 18:5-11).
The second occasion alluded to here also occurs in the context of the Philistine wars. Since
"David was more successful than all the other officers of Saul, his reputation soared" (1 Sam.
18:30). 1 In response, Saul urges his courtiers to kill his rival. But David fortunately escapes this
danger through the intervention of Jonathan with his father (19:1-6). Nevertheless, after David
leads another round of military successes, Saul is again smitten by an evil spirit and, as he had
done before, "tried to pin David to the wall with [his] spear" (w. 8-10). Once again David
escapes. But this does not end the danger. Obsessed, Saul tries once again to kill David. This
time he sends messengers to guard David's house, with orders to strike him dead in the morn-
ing. But again he is thwarted. This time Michal (David's wife and Saul's daughter) warns David
of the plot and through a ruse covers up his escape (w. 11-16). Doubly foiled by members of
his own family (son and daughter), Saul himselfsets out in hot pursuit ofDavid, accompanied
by a band of messengers.
As events develop, David flees to Jonathan and begs him to explain Saul's anger toward
him. Jonathan cannot quite believe that Saul would kill David without first confiding the matter
to him, but he nevertheless agrees to David's plan to test the matter. David sets the following
conditions: on the morrow, the feast of the New Moon, he will not go to the palace as usual,
but will make himself scarce for three days. If and when Saul should note the absence ofDavid,
Jonathan is advised to tell his father that his friend has gone to celebrate the feast with his own
family. Saul's reaction is to serve as an omen. "If he says 'Good' your servant [David] is safe;
but if his anger flares up, know that he is resolved to do [me] harm" (1 Sam. 20:7). This omen
would then be reported to David by a secret sign. Jonathan swears that he will test his father
through the ruse agreed upon and disclose the results to his friend. In his vow, he adjures David
to continued faithfulness to all his descendants. Thus the covenant between the friends becomes a
bond between their "houses" for generations to come (w. 12-16). Indeed, "Jonathan, out ofhis
love for David, adjured him again, for he loved him as himself" (v. 17). With this reaffirmation
of their commitment, Jonathan tells David what signs he will use to communicate his father's
intentions toward him. At this point the haftarah begins.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
All the elements of the opening part of the haftarah recur in the second and third parts: the
absence of David at court during the New Moon, the ruse of the arrows in the field, and the
covenantal commitment between David and lonathan. In fact, these elements recapitulate the
dialogue between David and lonathan in 1 Sam. 20:5-17—immediately prior to the haftarah.
There, too, the issue of David's absence at court is mentioned, along with a plan to test Saul's
feelings about David (w. 5-9, 10-11). Moreover, this narrative also concludes with an emphasis
on the covenant between the friends (w. 12-17). Accordingly, the same features unfold in 1
Samuel 20 in triplicate.2 These repetitions underscore the complicity of the friends in their plot
and pact. They also highlight the essential polarities of the episode: trust and distrust; court and
field; anger and love; filial bond and friendship.
The haftarah moves back and forth between these poles in various combinations. Particu-
larly important is the contrast drawn between the established kingship at court and the bond of
friendship in the field. This is as much a contrast between past and future leadership as between
age (Saul) and youth (David). In various ways, lonathan mediates between the poles. 3 He is at
once the trusted son of the king and the beloved friend of the hero, and he is the one who sits at
court with his father and stands in the field with his comrade. Nevertheless, his intermediation
between the two sides is not symmetrical, for he betrays his father's confidence out of loyalty
to David, as King Saul comes to realize during the New Moon feast. lonathan's fate is sealed
when he tries to annul Saul's decree that David die. It is at this point that the king takes up his
spear against his son.
Recalling earlier episodes when Saul made the same gesture against David, the reader perceives
lonathan through the eyes ofhis enraged father: as the decoy and double ofDavid. The signal cast
by means of the arrows symbolically reinforces this perception and ironizes it. For at one and the
same time, the arrows shot by lonathan and the escape plan recall the spear-wielding king (Saul)
and the ever-elusive hero (David) who repeatedly escapes. lonathan's role as archer thus mocks his
father's actions and puts him in cahoots with his fleeing friend. Little wonder that lonathan again
C O M M E N T S
1 Samuel 20:19. the other time Hebrewfe-jyowha-madseh~, literally, "on the day of the
incident." This presumably refers to the time when Jonathan interceded with Saul for David's
life (1 Sam. 19:2-4). Thus Kimhi, R. Joseph Kaspi, and Gersonides.
the Ezel stone A cairn of sorts, apparently used as a signpost for travelers. Compare
verse 41, below.
20. to one side ofit Hebrew tzidah, without mapik in the final letter to indicate possessive
pronoun, though grammar requires it (Kimhi).
23.Asfor the promise we made Literally, "as for the matter [davar] we spoke about."
The reference is to the covenant mentioned in verses 14-17 (cf. Rashi, R. Isaiah di Trani). The
phrase "between you and me" is a technical legal phrase found in verse 42 and other covenant
formulations; compare Gen. 26:28 (between Isaac and the Abimelech, king of the Philistines)
and 31:50 (between Jacob and Laban). In the latter case, God also serves as the witness between
the parties. This is implied in our verse (cf. Targum Jonathan).
26. It's accidental Hebrew mikreh hu\ The subsequent clause, "He must be unclean and
not yet cleansed," suggests that mikreh has here the more technical sense of an "accidental (seminal
emission)." This is also Rashi's understanding (cf. B. Pesahim 3a). For the overall phenomenon,
see Deut. 23:11, where just such an accident can make the agent "impure." The clause "He must
be unclean and not yet cleansed" is redundant and may combine two textual readings.4 One clause
stated "he is unclean"; the other, "for (surely) he is unclean." NJPS reads the phrases together
and thus introduces the new meaning "notyet cleansed." OJPS: "surely he is not clean."
27. But on the day after the new moon, the second day This renders the difficult Hebrew
phrase mi-mahamt ha-hodesh ha-sheni. This follows the old Targum tradition (be-yoma} de-vatrohi
de-hu} 'ibburyarha,tinyana:') and agrees with the position of R. Isaiah di Trani.5 R. David Kimhi
understood it to mean the day after the New Moon. At issue here is whether the New Moon was
celebrated in biblical times for two days. This was not the case in later rabbinic law (but could
occur where Jews in outlying districts counted thirty days from the previous new moon and
celebrated it, only to learn from messengers from Jerusalem that the official sighting of the new
moon set it for the next day; this second day was then celebrated as well). Among the divisions
separating the Rabbis and Karaites in the Middle Ages was a debate as to whether the phrase
ha-hodesh ha-sheni meant "the second day of the new moon." 6 The Septuagint rendered ha-sheni
as the "second" day of the month, thus assuming one day for the New Moon.
the son ofjesse To avoid the first name is slighting; cf. 10:11, Isa. 7:4-6 [Transl.].
30. Tou son of a perverse, rebellious womanl Saul's harsh criticism of Jonathan and the
subsequent gesture of aggression against him provided the basis for rabbinic and medieval discus-
sions about the limits of reproof. According to ancient traditions preserved in B. Arakhin 16b,
Sages variously placed the limit at cursing, rebuking, shouting, or smiting. The Sefer Ha-Hinnukh
(:mitzvah 239) and Maimonides {Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De'ot 6) put the limit at actual smit-
ing—thus leaving room for threatening (but inconclusive) gestures like that of Saul in verse 33.
41. eme^gedfrom his concealment at theNegev This rendition is interpretative. "Emerged,"
literally, "arose [from]" (Hebrewkam). "From his concealment at the Negev" construes the phrase
C O N N E C T I O N S BETWEEN T H E H A F T A R A H
A N D T H E SPECIAL SABBATH
The haftarah was chosen to be recited on a Sabbath followed by the New Moon, since this
scriptural reading uses the very words mahar hodesh ("Tomorrow will be the new moon" [1 Sam.
20:18]) that now designate that day. Moreover, though the Torah only designates the types of
sacrificial rites performed on the New Moon (Num. 10:10; 28:11-15), our haftarah indicates
that more popular gatherings and communal meals were undertaken. We read both that the king
sat down to "partake of the meal" (lehem [1 Sam. 20:24]) and that David is purported to have
gone to his hometown of Bethlehem in order to participate in the "family feast" (zevah mishpahah
[v. 29]) there. Ancient rabbinic sources also preserve evidence of celebrating the New Moon
with festive meals (J. Megillah 1:4, J. Sanhedrin 8:2). This practice was later codified (Shulhan
Arukh, Orah Hayyim 419:1). From the haftarah, we also learn that "unclean" persons could not
participate in this communal meal (v. 26). Other biblical passages indicate customs of abstaining
from work (Amos 8:5) and visiting (a prophet at) a sacred shrine on the New Moon (2 Kings
4:23). It was clearly a time of joyful celebration (Hos. 2:13), though no specific injunction is
found in the Torah to rejoice on that day (for later justifications of celebration on the New Moon,
see lur, Yoreh De'ah 401).
Since on the New Moon an additional sacrifice was offered, an additional prayer (Musaf) is
now recited. It opens with the statement: "The beginnings of months Thou did assign for Thy
people as a time of atonement throughout the generations." This indicates a further dimension
of the festival, in which the atonement from sin was linked to the renewal and restoration of the
moon. In this way, ancient lunar considerations were spiritualized. Maimonides even emphasized
that the striking reference to a sacrifice brought as "a sin offering to the L O R D " (Num. 2 8 : 1 5 )
was to counter old rites that gave offerings to the moon on that day (Guidefor the Perplexed 3:
46), though some ancient authorities saw in this biblical phrase bold hints of a more radical
purpose for the rite (see Resh Lakish, B. Hullin 6ob). Kabbalists found great spiritual meaning
in the waxing and waning of the moon, and by the sixteenth century it was customary to observe
the day before the New Moon as a time of fasting and repentance. It came to be known as Yom
Kippur Katan (Minor Day of Atonement), and the waning of the moon was believed symbolic
of the exile of the divine Presence (Shekhinah) and the weakening of the powers of holiness
during the time oflsrael's exile. Thus the waxing of the moon correspondingly symbolized the
renewal of holiness and divine restoration. On a human plane, the new moon thus takes on the
symbolism of redemption and eschatological hope.
The renewal of human life and community so fundamental to the messianic age is antici-
pated in the haftarah through its emphasis on friendship. Indeed, the bond between David and
ASHKENAZIM 2KINGS12:1-17
SEPHARDIM 2 KINGS 11:17-12:17
For an introduction to the structure, contents, and historiography of the Book of Kings, see "The
Book of Kings" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." For other hafta-
rah selections taken from the Book ofKings, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
After a brief account of the revolt in Judah that deposed Queen Athaliah (842-836 B.C.E.), 2
Kings 11:17-20 describes how the priest Jehoiada established the rule of King Jehoash—who had
been hid "in the House of the LORD" during Athaliah's reign. Jehoiada solemnized the covenant
between the Lord, the king, and the people, on the one hand, and between the king and the
people, on the other. After a popular rampage that decimated the temple of Baal, the priest set
in motion the accession of Jehoash (836-798 B.C.E.). These events (2 Kings 11:17-20) serve as
the prologue to the account of the king's reign and constitute the first part of the haftarah in the
Sephardi rite.1 Ashkenazim recite only the ensuing report of the king's efforts to collect funds
and repair the Temple (2 Kings 12:1-17).
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
Following the popular purge of the temple of Baal, the narrative focuses on Jehoash's attempts
to provide funds to repair the Temple of the Lord. His first instruction is apparently disregarded
because the priests see it as cutting into their regular emoluments. The new regulations require
that sacred funds be put directly into a storage bin but also stress that sacred payments (for sin
and guilt offerings) belong to the priests alone. Since the king is speaking to the priests, he uses
a kind of"sacred shorthand" that refers to several terms and practices found in priestly sources.
After the opening general statement "All the money [lit., silver] brought into the House of the
}
LORD," three items specified: ( 1 ) kesef'over, ( 2 ) ish kesefnafshot'erko, and ( 3 ) kesef'asherya'aleh
'al lev 'ish (v. 5).
The first clause (1) is a precise though elliptic rendition of the phrase kesef ha-'over 'al ha-
pekudim (the silver of those enrolled in the census) and not a reference to "current money"
(NJPS) or the like. It thus refers to Exod. 30:14 and the poll price paid by all the males twenty
years of age and up. It would best be translated "silver of the census tax." The second expression
(2) refers to the technical term used in Lev. 27:2 for the payment of vows according to a fixed
"valuation of persons" (be-'erkekha nefashot:, NJPS: "equivalent for a human being"). And the
final phrase (3) alludes to all other votary gifts to the shrine by an idiom similar to those found
in Exod. 25:2; 35:21 and 29. 2 Accordingly, King Jehoash's proclamation refers to three types of
silver payments (see also Rashi and Kimhi). The reference in 2 Kings 12:17 to silver brought as a
guilt or sin offering refers to the priestly practice that permitted substituting a silver "equivalent"
(be-'erkekha) for livestock (cf. Lev. 5:18). 3
According to the narrative, the king claims certain powers over sacred donations—both with
regard to their disbursement (initially the priests retain discretionary powers over "all silver"
brought to the Temple) and with regard to their collection and use (ultimately the priests can only
receive and retain silver given in exchange for sacrificial offerings). It thus hints at a balancing of
powers between kings and priests of much historical interest (see Abravanel on 2 Kings 12:9).
C O M M E N T S
The Sabbath known as Shabbat Shekalim is the first of four special Sabbaths before Passover.
Shabbat Shekalim occurs on the New Moon of the month of Adar when it falls on a Sabbath
or on the prior Sabbath when the New Moon falls on a weekday (in a leap year, this Sabbath
is celebrated in the second month of Adar). This occurrence sets the timing for the other three
Sabbaths: Shabbat Zakhor on the Sabbath before Purim, Shabbat Parah on the Sabbath prior to
Shabbat ha-Hodesh, and Shabbat ha-Hodesh on the Sabbath nearest the New Moon of Nisan
(in which month Passover falls). This sequence of Sabbaths is already specified in the Mishnah
(M. Megillah 3:4), along with reference to breaks or skipped Sabbaths (if necessary) so that the
four special Sabbaths conclude on the Sabbath before Nisan. The resulting sequence and pos-
sible adjustments led to complicated calculations (marked by diverse mnemonics; cf. Rashi on
B. Megillah 30b, and J. Megillah 3:5). The Amoraim in the Talmud debated whether the special
Torah readings for these Sabbaths (temporarily) displaced or supplemented the regular Sabbath
portions (see B. Megillah 30b and Rashi). The halakhah follows the second alternative, so that
the special readings are added to the weeklyparashah {Maimonides, Mishnek Torah, Hilkhot Tefil-
lah 13:22; and Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 685).
The supplementary Torah reading for Shabbat Shekalim is Exod. 30:11-16, which refers
to a poll tax of "half a shekel" (mahatzit ha-skekel) for the building of the desert Tabernacle. In
ancient Temple times, this tax was regularized as an annual donation "required of every one in
Israel" and "announced on the first of Adar" (M. Shekalim 1:1). Setting the preparations one
month in advance ensured that the new flock of animals sacrificed from the beginning of the
month ofNisan would be paid for with the new shekels (B. Megillah 29b). The public reading
of this portion served as a notification to the populace to bring their shekels.
The haftarah for Shabbat Shekalim is mentioned in the Tosefta (Tosefta Megillah 3) as "Je-
hoiada the priest" (referring to 2 Kings 12:3). In the Talmud, the same phrase is cited to mark
the haftarah when "the New Moon of Adar falls on a Sabbath"—with the explanation that recit-
ing this haftarah with Exod. 30:11-16 is altogether fitting since the one "resembles" the other
(de-da-mi leih)—"as it is written [in 2 Kings 12:5] kesef'over }ish kesefnafshot'erko" (B. Megillah
29b). This reference to a monetary payment enjoined for repair of the Temple was perceived
to tally with the injunction of a poll tax levied against each person (}ish kofer naf-sho) who was
"entered" ('over) in the census (Exod. 30:12-13) at the time of the building of the Tabernacle.
Hence, along with the verbal tally, the passages display a thematic connection: a sacral donation
in the wilderness in Moses' day, and a donation for Temple upkeep in the monarchic era.
With the destruction of the Second Temple and the end of sacrifices (in 70 c . E . ) , the special
Torah reading for Shabbat Shekalim was recited "in remembrance" (le-zekher) of the Temple (Sefer
ha-Hinnukh 105). This annual occasion was used to solicit charity in support of lewish religious
and physical existence. The fact that in this particular gift the people shall "take a census" (tissa}
}
et ro'sh) of themselves (Exod. 30:12) and "the rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay
less than half a shekel" (v. 15) meant that a common commitment and obligation were assumed
of all members of the lewish community. Moreover, just as old rabbinic homilies had hinted
that the sacred donation of shekalim offset the sin of idolatry (with the Golden Calf), such that
God would "account" (tissa}) the merit of the people and "forgive" them (tissa}),7 so the annual
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 4 2
occasion of Shabbat Shekalim came to mark the ongoing hope (in the absence of the Temple)
that charity might serve as a sacrificial substitution—as a gift leading to religious renewal and
divine forgiveness.8 Later hasidic masters went further and taught that such gifts may serve as a
means of"raising" (tissn') the donor to a higher plane of spiritual consciousness.9
For the contents and theology of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the discussion of the several other haftarah readings taken from the Book of Samuel
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah deals with Saul's battle against the Amalekites and his rejection as king by God
for not obeying His command of utter extermination of that nation and its livestock. The episode
concludes a cycle of narratives that begins with the anointment of Saul (1 Sam. 9:1-10:16) after
the people request a king and God acquiesces to their demand (8:1-22). The specific language of
royal investiture, when "Samuel took a flask of oil and poured some on Saul's head and kissed him,
and said, 'The L O R D herewith anoints you \meshahakha\ ruler over His own people'" (10:1-2), is
recalled at the outset of the haftarah, when Samuel begins his instruction to Saul with the reminder
that he is "the one the L O R D sent to anoint you \meshahakha\ king over His people Israel" (15:1).
Moreover, after the rejection of Saul, Samuel is instructed to "fill" his "horn with oil" and "anoint"
(;meshahehu) David as king (16:1, 12-13). Thus begins David's ascent (ca. 1000 B.C.E.). According
to the text, "the spirit of the L O R D gripped David from that day on"; whereas "the spirit of the L O R D
had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the L O R D began to terrify him" (16:13-14).
Saul's leadership was marked by a continuous series of military ventures against enemies "on
every side." These included "the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Philistines, and the kings of
Zobah" (1 Sam. 14:47)—and notably by his defeat of the Amalekites (v. 48). This summary
of victories suggests an interim conclusion to Saul's battles. The ensuing account of the war
against the Amalekites, which constitutes the haftarah (15:1-34), would thus seem to detail
events within the Amalekite campaign just summarized. It is elaborated here to dramatize the
king's rejection. In light of a Pentateuchal injunction to destroy Amalek when all the enemies
"roundabout" are defeated, the battle portrayed in our haftarah assumes a climactic significance
in the saga of Israel's conquest and settlement of the Land.
According to the Book of Exodus, "Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim" (Exod.
17:8). After a national conscription, and with divine help, "Joshua overwhelmed the people of
Amalek with the sword" (v. 13). To mark the moment, the Lord has the event inscribed in a
document and stated that "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven"
(v. 14). Moses complies, builds an altar in commemoration, and dedicates it to his victorious
God, whom, he says, "will be at war with Amalek throughout the ages" (v. 16). This revision
of God's oath is striking, though not as transformative as the tradition preserved in Deut. 25:
17-19, read as the concluding (mnftir) Torah selection for the portion of Zakhor. In this version,
the Israelites are asked to remember Amalek's attack against "all the stragglers" who made up
the weary rearguard of the people during the desert trek from Egypt (w. 17-18). "Therefore,"
the people are told, "when the L O R D your God grants you safety from all your enemies around
you, in the land that the L O R D your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out
the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget!" (v. 19).
In the Deuteronomic account, it is the people who must remember the enemy and do the
deed of destruction—not God; 1 and this must be done "when the L O R D your God grants you
safety from all your enemies around you [}oyvekha mi-saviv].n The historian of the Book of Samuel
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The narrative features several key words and phrases that reinforce the themes of the text and give
expression to its ironies and allusions. Particularly notable is the opening phrase, when Samuel
appears to Saul and tells him to "listen to the L O R D ' S command" (shema' le-kol divrei YHWH [ 1
Sam. 15:1]). Literally, he is advised to "hear" or "obey" (shema') the "voice" (kol) of the Lord.
This is the absolute demand and it sets the tone for the subsequent events and judgment. Thus,
though Saul greets Samuel with the claim that he has fulfilled the devar 'YHWH ("the L O R D ' S
command" [v. 13]), Samuel refutes him with the sarcastic quip: "Then w h a t . . . is this sound
[kol; NJPS: bleating] of sheep in my ears, and the sound [kol; NJPS: lowing] of oxen that I hear
[shome'a\V (v. 14). To reemphasize the opening point and counterpoint these sounds, Samuel
repeats the divine proscription and asks, "Why did you not obey [shamafta^ the voice [kol] of the
L O R D ? " (V. 19; NJPS: "disobey the LORD"). And to reinforce the point, Samuel stresses that God
does not want sacrifices so much as "obedience [.shome'a] to the L O R D ' S command [kol YHWH\"
for "surely obedience [shemo'a] is better than sacrifice" (v. 22).
The repeated use of kol and shama' highlights the element of absolute obedience. The punish-
ment for not obeying the divine word is rejection. Samuel states: "Because you [Saul] rejected
[ma'asta] the L O R D ' S command, He has rejected [vn-yimM'sekhn] you as king" ( 1 Sam. 1 5 : 2 3 ) .
This fateful doom is repeated after Saul repents and begs forgiveness (v. 26). The language is
unequivocal and striking; and through it the reader may hear allusions to the very onset of the
monarchy. For when the people first requested a king and Samuel resisted, a divine oracle came to
him saying: "Heed the demand [shema' be-kol] of the people in everything they say to you. For it
is not you that they have rejected \ma,asu\ \ it is Me they have rejected [ma'asu] as their king" (1
Sam. 8 : 7 ; cf. 8 : 2 1 ) . The issue in both cases is the authority of divine kingship. God will accept
human rulers only so long as God's own rule goes unchallenged. Saul disturbs this arrangement
by his decision to revise or reinterpret the divine command of proscription.
This leads us to the act of disobedience. The issue is puzzling. Despite the very clear and abso-
lute nature of the proscription in 1 Sam. 15:3 (including the destruction of all persons, male and
female, young and old; and all livestock, large and small), Saul saves Agag, and the people save
the best of the livestock—and yet Saul tells Samuel that he has in fact fulfilled God's command (v.
13). Is this an outright lie or a misunderstanding? The narrator wants us to incline toward the first
option, since his use of the verb "spared" (homal) to describe the action of Saul and the troops (v.
9) patently alludes to the same verb in the original proscription (v. 3). Moreover, in stating that the
best livestock were kept and only the worst destroyed, we are led to think that this act of sparing
was due to greed. But why did Saul so brazenly assert that he has fulfilled the command?
Is Saul's further defense, that the animals were saved for a special sacrifice to God, also a lie?
Samuel does not rebut the truth of this claim, but rather invalidates its legitimacy: the divinely
245 HAFTARAH FOR SHABBAT SHEKALIM
anointed leader of the tribes cannot do as he wants but must fulfill the command of God. Indeed,
he goes on, God wants obedience more than sacrifices. The point is finely wrought. The rebuke,
"obedience [shemo'a] is better than sacrifice \mi-zeva-h toy]" (1 Sam. 15:22), not only uses toy (bet-
ter) as the adverbial complement to zevah (sacrifice), but alludes to the people's action as well, for
according to Saul, the troops spared the "best" (meita-v) animals for sacrifice. The second aspect
of the rebuke is thus that God wants obedience more that any "goodly" sacrifice of the people's
choice. Saul now understands and repents (w. 24, 30). But why did he not understand earlier?
By way of solution we may reconsider the term herem, used verbally in our text to refer to
the proscription or utter ban and extermination of all Amalekite life and property.3 Technically
speaking, the herem is a devoted thing, proscribed for human use because it is consecrated to
God and thus irredeemable. The priestly rule in Lev. 27:28-29 distinguishes three categories:
property (like land, which belongs to the sanctuary); animals (the pure are sacrificed on the altar,
the impure remain part of the sanctuary); and persons (like prisoners of war, who must be killed).4
In pre-Deuteronomic war traditions, the property and persons of the enemy could be devoted as
herem to the Lord (either as a vow before battle, as in Num. 21:1-3, or as a general rule). But it
is significant that in pre-conquest war reports found in the Book ofDeuteronomy (see 2:34-37;
3:4-7), all the population and the cities themselves were destroyed—but the livestock was saved
as booty. Further, in reports of proscription enacted during loshua's wars of conquest (losh. 8:
2, 28; 10:28-40; 11:10-20), both the livestock and property were taken as spoils. Clearly, the
absolute extermination of everything (persons and property) is a later Deuteronomic innovation.
According to one view, the command is the result of a synthesis between two earlier, distinct
rules—the proscription and death of an idolator, found in Exod. 22:19; and the required expulsion
of the native Canaanite population, as stated in Exod. 23:20-33. 5 By associating the Canaanites
with idolaters, and thus subject to their penalty, a new rule was formulated requiring the utter
proscription unto death and destruction of the life and property of the Canaanites (see Deut.
7:1-5, 24-26). It is this rule that Samuel applies to the Amalekites, who were not part of the
seven native Canaanite nations (see Deut. 7:1), in combination with the rule to exterminate the
inhabitants of surrounding cities who might incite the people to idolatry (see Deut. 13:13-19,
where also the term herem is used [v. 16], and which follows an exhortation not to "spare" the
life of an idolater in v. 9, in connection with individual inciters; notably, that passage refers to
Israelite compliance as "heeding the L O R D , " tishma-'be-kol YHWH [v. 19]). 6
In this light, we may reconsider the actions and words of Saul and suggest that while Samuel
articulates the absolute Deuteronomic rule at the outset, Saul's behavior reflects another stream
of tradition, which did not destroy all persons and property and could even choose to sacrifice
the latter later, at the shrine, or as a special votary offering to the Lord (i. e., as a personal act
of devotion above and beyond what was required by the law). The clash between Samuel and
Saul would thus be a clash either between two types of treatment of property in holy warfare or
over Saul's interpretation of the rule (he spared the best of the livestock in order to sacrifice it
separately to the Lord). 7 Saul's version is rejected; "obedience is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam.
15:22). His action seals his fate.
There is therefore much pathos in the haftarah—first, because Saul's sin is not a flagrant re-
jection of divine authority; and second, because his repeated confessions and appeals for divine
forgiveness are rejected. The reader is confronted with the austerity and stringency of God's de-
mands and the required brutality of the Israelite nation. Mercy is prohibited; no one and nothing
may be "spared." The war against the Amalekites is thus presented as a just war, punishing an
offense centuries old. Rejection or reinterpretation of the absolute orders is absolutely forbidden.
Whether as an actual event or exemplary (literary) case, 1 Sam. 15:1-34 confronts the reader
with a fierce and uncompromising theology. Its annual liturgical recitation demands repeated
moral and theological reflection.
According to one rabbinic tradition, variously formulated, Saul himself began this process
and tried to undermine the divine order through halakhic and moral reasoning (cf. B. Yoma
22b; Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:16). 8 He argued, on the basis of the biblical role requiring a heifer
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 4 6
to be slain to atone for an unknown homicide (Deut. 21:1-9), that innumerable animals would
be necessary to atone for the deaths of Amalek and that these animals were innocent. Moreover,
he added, even if the adults were guilty of death, why include the children in the proscription?
A divine voice then reproved him with the words of Ecclesiastes, "Do not be overly righteous"
(7:16). The answer challenges the moral soul of the tradition.
C O M M E N T S
1 Samuel 15:1-3. In the opening verses, Samuel refers to Saul as king and then tells
him to attack the Amalekites and "proscribe all that belongs to him" (v. 3). According to an
old tannaitic tradition, the Israelites were commanded to do three things when they came into
the Land: establish a king; build the Temple; and destroy Amalek (Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:5; Sifre
Deuteronomy 67). The sequence of the last two items is reversed in B. Sanhedrin 20b, and
compareMaimonides,-Mw^w^ Torah, HilkhotMelakhim 1:2.
3.proscribe Thatis, put to death; compare Lev. 27:28-29: "Of all that anyone owns, be
it man or beast or land . . . , nothing . . . proscribed for the L O R D may be sold or redeemed; every
proscribed thing is totally consecrated to the L O R D . N O human being who has been proscribed can
be ransomed: he shall be put to death" [Transl.]. See the discussion in Content and Meaning.
Spare no one The Hebrew verb suggests a harsher command: "have no pity." See Deut.
13:9. The writer returns to this word to describe Saul's disobedience (1 Sam. 15:9).
4. Saul mustered the troops and enrolled them The narrative is tightly textured. Not
only is the theme of "hearing" or "heeding" (shamac) repeated throughout the text (w. 1, 14, 19,
20, 22, 24), but it also appears through puns. Thus the initial command was to hear or "listen
to" (shemac) the divine word (v. 1), and Saul proceeds immediately to "muster" (va-yshamac) the
troops (for Rashi, this verb suggests an act of summoning; for Kimhi, it indicates the gathering
of troops). Similarly, Samuel says that God remembers or requites (pakadti) the crime of the
Amalekites (v. 2; the verb serves double duty here), and this feature is picked up in the reference
to Saul's enrolling the troops (va-yipkedem).
at Telaim Thus NJPS; compare Kimhi, who reads ba-tela'im as referring to "a place
name, even though it is formulated with a definite article" (one would have expected be-tela'im,
but compare ba-karkar in Judg. 8:10). Telem is a site in the Negev (Josh. 15:24). Alternatively,
the word refers literally to the "lambs" with which the military census was taken. Animals were
used so as not to count people directly (for the danger, and the use ofpakad to mean counting for
a census, see 2 Samuel 24). This sense is discussed in B. Sanhedrin 20b and adduced by Rashi.
Targum Jonathan renders "he (Saul) numbered them with the lambs for the Paschal offering,"'
thereby giving this understanding and providing a dating of the event.
6. Saul said to the Kenites He told them to withdraw "from among the Amalekites," to
recompense their kindness to Israel in the wilderness. The precise events are uncertain; possibly the
reference is to the service that the Kenites provided as desert guides (see Num. 10:29-32). Some
Kenites presumably encamped among the Amalekites. The association of these two tribal groups
is also found in Balaam's prophecy (Num. 24:20-21). There we have the doom oracle against
Amalek, stating that "its fate is to perish forever," whereas the "abode" of the Kenites (keini) will
"be secure" and "your nest \kinekha\ be set among cliffs." Their name predicts their fate.
9. what was cheap and worthless Hebrew kol ha-mela'khah nemivzah ve-names }otah. The
phrase is difficult and undoubtedly miswritten. This use of the noun mela'khah is unusual and
seems to mean "cattle" (see Kimhi, and Gen. 33:14). The noun nemivzah looks like a mistake (or
variant; so Rashi and Kimhi) for nivzah (cheap); names (worthless) is rendered in the masculine
form, and the feminine is expected; and'otah (it) makes no sense here. The Septuagint allows us
to reconstruct the Hebrew to the more sensible kol mela'khah nivzah ve-nim'eset (whatever was
cheap and despised).
The Sabbath known as Shabbat Zakhor is the second of four special Sabbaths before Passover
(M. Megillah 3:4). It occurs on the Sabbath before Purim, even ifPurim itselffalls on the next
Sabbath (Tosefta Megillah 3:1). The timing is determined by the onset of the first of these Sab-
baths, Shabbat Shekalim. This Sabbath occurs on the New Moon of the month of Adar when
it falls on a Sabbath or on the prior Sabbath when the New Moon falls on a weekday (in a leap
year, this Sabbath is celebrated in the second month of Adar). In the event that the New Moon
of Adar does occur on a weekday, the first Sabbath in Adar is not included among the four special
Sabbaths, and this cycle resumes on the next Sabbath (Shabbat Zakhor)—this being the Sabbath
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 4 8
immediately prior to the holiday of Purim. The third of these Sabbaths is Shabbat Parah, and it
occurs just prior to the fourth Sabbath, Shabbat ha-Hodesh. Shabbat ha-Hodesh occcurs on the
Sabbath nearest the New Moon ofNisan (the next month, during which Passover falls).
The sequence of Sabbaths and reference to the permitted breaks—so that the "four" readings
conclude on the Sabbath before Nisan—are already specified in the Mishnah (M. Megillah 3:
4). This formulation is abbreviated and led to fuller discussions (cf. J. Megillah 3:5 and Rashi's
extensive remarks on B. Megillah 30b, with mnemonics). The Amoraim in the Talmud debated
whether the special Torah readings for these Sabbaths (temporarily) displaced or supplemented
the regular Sabbath portions (see B. Megillah 30b and Rashi). The halakhah follows the second
alternative, and the special readings are added to the weekly parashah (Maimonides, Mishneh
Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 13:22; and Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 685).
The supplementary Torah reading on Shabbat Zakhor is taken from Deut. 25:17-19, in
which the Israelites are enjoined to "remember" (zakhor) what Amalek did to the people on their
way out ofEgypt and to "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"
That remembrance and that act of destruction are articulated in the haftarah. In it, God Himself
"remembers" or "exacts the penalty" (pakadti) for Amalek's crime, described in terms reminiscent
of the Torah verses. This reference to divine remembrance is cited in the Tosefta (Tosefta Megil-
lah 3:1) as the opening line of the haftarah. Ashkenazi custom continues to begin the reading
with this verse (1 Sam. 15:2) and does not start with the opening address by Samuel to Saul
(v. 1). The absence of this introduction gives a certain enduring force to God's stated readiness
to punish Amalek. Indeed, since this haftarah is recited on the Sabbath before Purim, on which
the Scroll of Esther is read and the evil plots against the Jews of Persia by Haman the Agagite
are recalled, later generations could read in the assertion of divine remembrance some assurance
that God remains steadfast to punish Amalek in all generations.
The haftarah thus functions as a prototype of divine protection against this enemy "throughout
the ages" (Exod. 17:16). The typological link between 1 Samuel 15 and the Scroll of Esther was
already drawn in biblical times: for just as Saul is the son of Kish from the tribe of Benjamin, so
is Mordecai's lineage traced to the line of Saul's father (Esther 2:5); and just as the Israelite king
defeats Amalek and its king Agag, so does the latter-day hero of the Jews foil the plots of Haman
"the Agagite" (Esther 3:1, 10). Later rabbinic tradition was not content to leave the connection
at the literary level but developed the legend that between the capture of Agag by Saul and his
execution by Samuel, he sired a child whose descendant was Haman himself.10 Thus what Saul
failed to complete, Mordecai achieved for future generations.
Amalek also became a prototype for all the enemies of the Jews in all generations. In early
midrashic homilies and in liturgical poetry recited on Shabbat Zakhor, this foe is identified with
Edom (the genealogy in Gen. 36:12 gave added proof) —and through that identification, Amalek
served as a figure for Rome and Christianity, as well.11 Accordingly, the appeal to God to remem-
ber and destroy this foe was renewed in times of oppression, even as the duty to remember and
destroy remained a religious imperative through the commandments of the Torah. In the latter
case, the danger of a literal reading need not be exaggerated. As a counterpoint, "Amalek" was
eventually reinterpreted in terms of the evil inclination (cf. Zohar 3:281b) and religious failure.12
The result was that the eradication of "Amalek" became part of a psycho-spiritual process. But
this more personal reading of the term never displaced the national-historical one, and the two
oscillate in tension. The carnival quality of Purim celebrations may thus dangerously mask the
serious moral issues. Vengeance is not just the Lord's; it is enacted by persons.
For the life and times of Ezekiel and a consideration of the contents, style, and theology of his
prophecies, see "The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
249 HAFTARAH FOR SHABBAT SHEKALIM
Cycle." See also the comments on the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed
in "Index of Biblical Passages").
This haftarah is one of the prophecies of hope and consolation that Ezekiel addressed to the
ludean exiles in Babylon. These oracles begin in Ezekiel 33 (dated Tevet 585 B.C.E., according
to Ezek. 33:21) and evince a reversal of national fortune. 1 In particular, Ezekiel 35 and 36:1-15
provide consolation to the people for the taunts of their enemies—who hoped for their ruin (cf.
Ezek. 35:10-12; 36:2-3, 5, 13). Now, by God's grace, the opposite will occur: the taunters will
be destroyed (35:3-9, 12, 14-15; 36:5-7) and the land of ludea restored to Israel (36:8-12).
Ezekiel 36:16-38 gives special expression to this theme. We are told that the nations mocked
Israel, saying, "These are the people of the LoRD,_yet they had to leave His land." By this asper-
sion, God's holy name was profaned (w. 20-21). In response, the Lord determines to act for
His own honor—promising the nation redemption from exile and restoration to its ancestral
homeland (w. 22-28). At that time, the ruins shall become fertile fields (w. 29-36) and the
people multiplied in great measure (w. 37-38).
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The haftarah is composed of a divine speech in two parts (Ezek. 3 6 : 1 6 - 2 1 and 2 2 - 3 2 ) . At the
outset, God speaks "the word of the L O R D " to the prophet (v. 1 6 ) , referring to Israel's sin and
defilement of the homeland. As a consequence, the people were judged for their ways and ban-
ished into exile. This punishment, however, did not redound to God's glory—since it led to the
profanation of God's holy name among the nations. This desecration was apparently due to the
nations' interpretation of Israel's degraded situation as a sign of divine weakness or inability to
save (see Text and Comments, Comment to v. 20). In reaction, God "had pity" (OIPS; NIPS:
"was concerned") for His name (v. 21).
The second half of the speech introduces God's determination to sanctify His great name
through a unilateral act of redemption. 2 Israel will be brought back to the homeland and cleansed
of its sins. The announcement opens with a lakhen clause ("therefore") and is reinforced by the
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH250
formula "Thus said the Lord GOD" (V. 22). The description of new events extends to verse 32. R.
Eliezer of Beaugency observed that this entire unit is framed by an inclusio—beginning and ending
with a statement of divine motivation: "Not for your sake will I act" (O House oflsrael). 3
The final two prophecies also begin with the same messenger formula used in the first speech
("Thus said the Lord GOD" [Ezek. 36:33, 37]). 4 These two oracles repeat earlier themes of na-
tional renewal. Sephardic custom recites only the first unit (w. 33-36), ending on a positive note
after the preceding divine call to Israel to "be ashamed and humiliated because of your ways" (v.
32). Ashkenazic practice reads the second positive oracle as well (w. 37-38), thus ending with a
comparison of the vast throngs of people in the homeland to the multitude of sheep in Jerusalem
on a festival day. This image was already interpreted in antiquity as a reference to the flock of
Israel "coming to Jerusalem at the time of the feast of Passover" (Targum Jonathan).
Thematically, the haftarah unfolds through a series of contrasts. The topic of defilement and
uncleanness appears first and is variously nuanced by the verb tame' (to defile) and the noun
tum'ah (uncleanness [Ezek. 36:17-18]). These terms are drawn from technical priestly vocabulary
and applied here to Israel's idolatrous behavior. In this way, the prophet expands the scope of this
language. When the terminology recurs later on (w. 25, 29), it serves as the counterpoint of the
process of divine purification conveyed by the corresponding priestly terms for ritual cleanness:
the verb taher and the noun tehorim. Thus one dynamic of the prophecy is built around the cultic
polarity of national defilement and purification.
This counterpoint extends beyond the "body politic" of the nation, insofar as the impurity
of Israel's ways defiled the Land and required their ejection from it—a result that follows stand-
ard priestly theology (cf. Lev. 18:25). Accordingly, the repurification of the people from their
"uncleanness" by the "clean water [mayim tehorimY sprinkled upon them (Ezek. 36:25) is the
necessary ritual prerequisite for their return to the Land and its fertility ("like the Garden of Eden"
[v. 35]). Thus exile and restoration are also functions of defilement and purification.
Within this overall framework of defilement and purification is another priestly polarity—ap-
plied to God's own name, which is either profaned or sanctified (Ezek. 36:20-23). The priestly
terms used here are the verbs hillel (to profane) and kiddesh (to sanctify), as well as the adjective
kadosh (holy). Being subject to different ritual states, the divine name is thus a spiritual entity
or quality that may be defiled through human action or attitude and may even be the object of
divine concern or pity (v. 21). For this reason, God Himself" will sanctify" His name when He
manifests His holiness (be-hikkadshi [v. 23]) through the redemption oflsrael.
A climactic component of the national transformation is a revivification of heart and spirit.
God will give the people a new heart to know Him and will put His spirit within them as a con-
crete act of inspiration. Israel will thus be re-created, a new Adam to be restored to a land that
is "like the garden ofEden" (Ezek. 36:35). This re-creation occurs at the center of the haftarah
(Ezek. 36:26-32); it is the core of the national purification and the climax of the divine acts of
sanctification. The destiny of God and Israel are thus mysteriously linked. The defilement of the
one (Israel) leads to the profanation of the other (God's name); and vice versa, the purification
of Israel results in the sanctification of God's name on earth. The relationship between the two
entities is marked positively at the end of this prophetic unit by the anticipation of a covenant
renewal. Reborn in heart and spirit, Israel will again serve God and His Law: "Then you shall
dwell in the land which I gave to your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will be your
God" (v. 28). The physical return to the homeland thus occasions a spiritual return to Sinai and
a restoration of the divine-human relationship.
C O M M E N T S
17. O .Mortal Literally, "O Son of Man" (ben \adam). This is a common characterization
of this prophet. It is used from the outset ofhis prophecies (Ezek. 2:1), speaking to him generi-
cally rather than by name (compare Jer. 1:11). Ezekiel's mortal nature is emphasized, perhaps
to counterpoint his difference from the divine beings he sees and has contact with (Ezekiel 1,
8-11, 40-42). 5
251 HAFTARAH FOR SHABBAT SHEKALIM
17-19. The prophet's priestly orientation is marked by his presentation of moral sins
as causing impurity to the Land. Similarly, the purification of the nation in verse 25 is portrayed
in cultic terms. The vocabulary of defilement, cleansing, sprinkling, and pure water are all used
in connection with the rite of the red heifer—the special Torah portion read on this Sabbath (cf.
Num 19:11-13, 17). The punishment for exile is thus presented here as recompense for ritual-
moral crimes. "I punished them [shefatetim:, lit., "judged them" (OJPS) ] in accordance with
their ways and their deeds" (v. 19).
17. like the uncleanness ofa menstruous woman The definite article (ha-niddah) person-
ifies the simile, rather than having it indicate a general state of impurity.6 The motif is used
elsewhere by the prophet to indicate moral and ritual pollution (Ezek. 18:6; 22:3-13). For
Ezekiel, the theme has cultic consequences. As a result of their "menstrual impurity," the nation
is banished from the Land. Another postexilic priest (Ezra) considered the land of Canaan to be
affected with such niddah pollution before the Israelite conquest (Ezra 9:11).
19.1 scattered them... and they were dispersed This combination of verbs is used else-
where by Ezekiel to describe the exile (Ezek. 20:23). The second verbal stem, zarah, is also used
by the prophet in a symbolic act portraying exilic dispersal (5:2). This term and the image of an
unsheathed sword derive from the divine punishment for covenantal infidelity found in Lev. 26:
33. The terms in Ezek. 20:23 and 36:19 are a more abbreviated allusion to this Torah passage.
20. they caused My holy name to be profaned The nations interpreted Israel's exile as a
sign of divine impotence, not punishment (see Rashi; Kimhi). Referring to God in a demeaning
way caused His holy name to be profaned (see Content and Meaning). Others have suggested
that Israel's very exilic state profanes God's name by the way her situation reflects on God. 7 On
this view, the response of the nations is not at issue; but the text itselfemphasizes the theologi-
cal taunt of the nations, and this seems to be the desecrating consequence of Israel's state (see
Abravanel).
The cultic imagery of profanation-holiness in verses 20 and 22-23 extends the priestly lan-
guage of purity-impurity used elsewhere in the prophecy. Divine action motivated by a concern
lest the divine name be profaned publicly is also found in Ezek. 20:9, 14, and 22. Redemption
as an expression of God's zeal for the sanctification of His name is thus the corresponding theme,
both here (w. 22-23) and in other exilic prophecies ofEzekiel (39:25).
22.Notforyoursake Or your merits (Abravanel). The phrase is repeated at the end of
the unit (v. 32), creating an integrating frame (R. Eliezer of Beaugency). The motivation for
divine action is regard for God's own name alone. As an ideological component, see the refrain
in Ezekiel 20 (w. 9, 14, 22). This chapter has many other terms found in our haftarah.
23b-38. This unit is missing in the oldest Greek textual witness. It may thus reflect a
later component or redaction of the traditions preserved in the Book of Ezekiel. The passage is
replete with some linguistically unusual features.8 Portions of verses 24-34 are, however, clearly
evidenced in an ancient Hebrew manuscript ofEzekiel found at Masada.9
26.1 willgive you a new heart Along with Ezek. 11:19, other prophecies contemplate
a radical transformation oflsrael's religious spirit after the exile through divine fiat. See ler. 24:7
and 31:32-33. In its focus on a unilateral divine action, this image seems to reflect some despair
in the exilic period over the independent capacity of the human spirit to return faithfully to God,
or at least a strong feeling that without divine initiative true repentance could not take place.
Compare the ritual cry at the close of Lamentations: "Take us back, O LORD, to Yourself, and let
us come back [return] . . ." (Lam. 5:21). On the heart of stone as a godless heart, see Targum
lonathan (v. 26). According to an opinion recorded in B. Berakhot 32a, the "stone" here is one
of seven terms used for the evil instinct—because it prompted Israel to stumble and sin.
a new heart and... a new spirit This image follows the reference to God's purgation of
the people from their uncleanness (v. 25). A similar theology, but expressed as a personal prayer,
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 5 2
is found in Psalm 51. There the speaker calls upon the Lord to "purify me of my sin . . . purge
me with hyssop till I am pure . . . [and climactically: ] fashion a pure heart for me, O God; create
[OJPS: renew] in me a steadfastspirit" (Ps. 51:4, 9, 12). 10
27. 1 will cause you A rare formulation. 11 Hebrew ve-dsiti }etasher. Literally, "I will
d o . . . s o that" or "I will bring it about that." 12 Another use of the verb 'asah to express divine
causation is found in Eccles. 3:14. 13
28. you shall be My people This is a technical covenantal formulary (cf. Jer. 11:4). Ezekiel
anticipates a new covenant after the exile; see also in Ezek. 16:60 and 37:26. See further Isa.
55:3 andjer. 31:31-32.
35.garden ofEden Ezekiel returns to this Eden motif in 47:1-2. This motif recurs in
other late prophetic texts. See Joel 4:18 and Zech. 14:8-11.
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H
A N D T H E SPECIAL SABBATH
Shabbat Parah is the third of four special Torah passages appended to the regular Sabbath portion
in the weeks before Passover.14 The theme of each reading is different, and rabbinic tradition
correlated each of the four with prophetic selections that reinforce the main theme.
There is a clear thematic link between the haftarah (Ezek. 36:16-38) and the special
reading for Shabbat Parah (Num. 19:1-22). 1 5 The passage from the Torah, describing the
ritual of the red heifer, presents an ancient rite of detoxification whereby persons who have
become impure through contact with the dead are purified and restored to the community. 16
Correspondingly, the prophetic unit announces Israel's revivification (a new heart and
spirit) and its purification by God. The technical language of purity-impurity, as well as the
terms for sacred lustrations (among others), provides an even closer connection between
the passages. The ancient rite of purification was recited at this season from early rabbinic
times (M. Megillah 3:4) and was understood to signal to the entire community that the
Passover sacrifice was to be performed in ritual purity (see Rashi on B. Megillah 29a; and
cf. the discussion in J. Megillah 3:5). 1 7 The haftarah reading reinforces such a national ap-
plicatio—proclaiming an ingathering of the exiles to their homeland, where they shall be
purified by God and renewed in spirit.
The liturgical and thematic links between Numbers 19 and Ezek. 36:16-38 are explicitly
marked in the Targum to Ezek. 36:25. This verse refers to God's lustrations and purification
of the people. The Targum phrases the connection thus: "And I [God] will remit your sins like
those that are purified with the waters of sprinkling and with the ashes of the heifer of the sin-
offering . . ." And later, when Ezek. 36:38 compares the repopulation oflsrael to the multitude
of sheep in Jerusalem on its festival days, the Targum extends the comparison by defining these
sheep as "the holy nation: . . . the nation which purifies itself and comes to Jerusalem at the time
ofPassover . . . "
The link between the pure water of Ezek. 36:25 and the lustrations of the red heifer rite in
Num. 19:18 is also noted by Rashi and Metzudat Zion, among others. R. Eliezer of Beaugency
emphasized the parabolic nature of Ezekiel's image of purification, calling attention to the simi-
larity between Ezek. 36:25 and Ps. 51:9 and 12 (see Text and Comments). In both cases, the
language of physical cleansing and the creation of a new heart is found.
The haftarah thus envisions a new era of purification and of a transformed religious conscious-
ness. For at least one synagogue poet, the cleansing was even interpreted as a promise of the
renewal of the red heifer lustrations ("I will sprinkle [ve-zamkti] clean water upon you" [Ezek.
36:25]; cf. Num. 19:20, also with the verb zarak]);18 and the new heart of flesh was taken to
symbolize the recreation of inwardness—even the removal of spiritual deadness, represented by
the heart of stone. 19
For Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration ofhis style, content, and theology, see "The Book
ofEzekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the various
comments to the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical
Passages"). An introduction to the content and structure of Ezekiel's restoration program (Ezekiel
40-48), of which this is a part, may be found in discussion of the haftarah for Tetzaweh.
The vision of the future Temple and city is dated to 573 B.C.E. (Ezek. 40:1).
The haftarah envisions various regulations pertaining to the rebuilt Temple. The Ashkenazi
reading opens with the proclamation that the "entire population" must provide a regular contribu-
tion of products for the Temple service (Ezek. 45:16; see note in Text and Comments); and the
text then goes on to state that it is the obligation of the prince to offer the requisite offerings for
the New Moon, the Sabbath, and the festivals from his holdings, for the expiation of all Israel (v.
17). This emphasis on expiation continues in the next major unit, in which we learn of a series of
purgation rites to be performed in the first and seventh months of the year (w. 18-25). Further
details are then given of the offerings for the fixed occasions, and the decorum of physical passage
within the inner court is regulated for the common people and the prince (46:1-15). Rules for
inheritance gifts by the prince to his sons or subjects are also regulated (w. 16-18).
The Ashkenazi reading thus begins and ends with matters of gifts (in the first case, the offering
by the laity via the prince [Ezek. 45:16-17]; in the latter, the donation by the prince to others
[46:16-18]) and focuses on the details of the Temple purgations and the sacrificial offerings (45:
18-46:15). Sephardi custom recites only the unit on purgations and offerings.
The instructions in this haftarah vary considerably, despite the repeated concern for sacrificial
purifications and the focus on the prince and his duties. Stylistically, three of the units (the Temple
purification, beginning at Ezek. 45:18; the entrance-exit rule, beginning at 46:1; and the inherit-
ance rules for the prince, beginning at 46:16) open with a prophetic introduction: "Thus said
the Lord GOD" (the formula also occurs at 45:9, which formally begins the opening unit). The
revelatory character of the rules is thus stressed, and legal style is frequently used (e. g., in 46:
12, 16-17). Grammatically, the addressees vary with the shift in subject matter, though in some
cases these changes are unexpected (e. g., 45:19-20; 46:12-13, 15).
The revealed nature of the prescriptions gives authority to the regulations but has perplexed
traditional commentators, who have noted many contradictions with priestly rules in the Torah.
These difficulties (see also the haftarah for Tetzaweh) contributed to an ancient rabbinic decision to
withdraw the Book of Ezekiel from public use, but this act was canceled after the heroic exegetical
effort of Hananiah ben Hilkiah (first century c . E . ) . "But for him the Book of Ezekiel would have
been withdrawn, for its words contradicted the words of the Torah. What did he do? They brought
up for him three hundred measures of oil, and he sat down in an upper chamber and expounded
it" (B. Hagigah 13b). His interpretations are "no longer found among us" (said Kimhi), but the
effort saved the day. In other cases, the Rabbis actually quote Ezekiel as an authoritative source on
certain matters of ritual law (see B. Mo'ed Katan 5a, citing Ezek. 39:15 and 44:9).
Particularly nettlesome is the account of the purgation of the Temple in the first and seventh
months. Nothing like it is mentioned in the Torah. Some commentators have associated these
purifications with the altar consecration mentioned in Ezek. 43:18-26 (Rashi; Kimhi) and judge
this rite to be a one-time event like the Tabernacle purification of old (which also occurred on
the first day of the first month; see Exod. 40:2). In this way, they tried to resolve any conflict
between this ceremony and the rites of purgation on Yom Kippur, ten days after the New Year
in the seventh month (Lev. 16:29). Notably, there is no reference to Yom Kippur in Ezekiel's
teaching, nor is there any reference to the festival of Tabernacles, which began on the fifteenth
day of the seventh month.
The cultic traditions found in the haftarah also contradict specific sacrificial regulations found
in the Torah. For example, according to Ezek. 45:24, the daily meal offering during the third
week of the first and seventh months was to consist of"an ephah [ca. one and one-halfbushels]
for each bull and an ephah for each ram, with a bin [ca. one and one-half gallons] of oil to every
ephah." By contrast, the corresponding meal offering in the Torah is prescribed to be "of choice
flour with oil mixed in: prepare three-tenths of a measure for a bull, two-tenths for a ram; and
for each of the seven lambs prepare one-tenth of a measure" (Num. 28:20-21; 29:3-4, 14-15). 1
Such differences indicate that diverse priestly traditions existed in ancient Israel or mark innova-
tions for the future.
Despite the clear symmetry between the rites of the first and seventh months—purgations
on the first and seventh days, and a week of sacrifices beginning on the fifteenth day of the
month—special mention is made of the Passover offering required on the fourteenth day of
the first month. The distinction between the sacrifice on that day and the week-long festival of
unleavened bread agrees with ancient priestly regulations—as recorded in Exod. 12:1-20, the
additional Torah reading for Shabbat ha-Hodesh. But Ezekiel does not give a precise time for
the sacrifice; whereas Exod. 12:6 specifies that the requisite lamb was slaughtered at "twilight"
of the fourteenth day.
C O M M E N T S
Ezekiel 45:16-17. The language of v. 16 is difficult. The rendering above follows the
Septuagint, because as a haftarah's prologue, "this offering" (v. 16) must be prospective, refer-
ring to the gifts that the people shall donate, which the prince must then prepare as offerings
(v. 17; cf. OJPS). In contrast, in the biblical context "this offering" arguably refers back to gifts
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D T H E SPECIAL SABBATH
Shabbat ha-Hodesh is the last of a series four special Sabbaths that begin on the first Sabbath
of Adar when that is a New Moon or on the week preceding if the New Moon falls during the
week. Shabbat ha-Hodesh occurs on the last Sabbath of Adar, unless the New Moon of Nisan
falls on a Sabbath. Shabbat ha-Hodesh gets its designation because of the opening proclamation
of the special portion from Exod. 12:1-20 read on that day: "This month [ha-hodesh] shall mark
for you the beginning of the months" (Exod. 12:2). This portion contains the commandment
to offer a paschal offering and its laws and thus anticipates the ritual to be performed on the
fourteenth ofNisan (see Rashi on B. Megillah 29a). The haftarah from Ezek. 45:16-46:18 (or
45:18-46:15) has a central section dealing with the paschal offering and sacrifices during the
ensuing week (45:21-24). If Shabbat ha-Hodesh occurs on a New Moon, the haftarah normally
read when the New Moon falls on a Sabbath (Shabbat Rosh Hodesh) is deferred in favor of the
special haftarah for Shabbat ha-Hodesh. 6
The special Torah reading from Exod. 12:1-20 and the haftarah from Ezek. 45:18-25 are
clearly linked. Both stress the Passover ceremony and festival of unleavened bread. For its part,
the Torah instruction describes the inaugural Passover ceremony in Egypt as well as provisions
for subsequent enactments. The haftarah describes the festival for the New Temple period and
stresses the formal purifications at that time. Taken together, the two descriptions reflect distinct
historical poles. The first of these, the Passover of Egypt, recalls when Israel was liberated from
bondage and called by God to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:6). The
HAFTARAH FOR FIRST DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH 2 5 6
Passover of the future anticipates a time when Israel will be restored to its homeland and its
sacred duties. In the first ceremony, blood was smeared on the doorposts of each clan dwelling
for the people's protection (Exod. 12:13). In the ritual found in Ezekiel, blood is to be (twice)
smeared on the doorposts of the Temple (among other places) for the purification of the Temple
(Ezek. 45:19).
Building upon these thematic connections, other correlations may be noted. For example,
the daubing of the entrance to the home and Temple with blood marks them off as two types
of space. The first embodies the family, whose bonds are biological and legal. The family is the
nuclear core of personal history and religious rite and preserves a parochial character by virtue
of intimacy and a common name. Alongside this dwelling stands the Temple, whose space is
communal and whose rites have an official and public status. The Temple opens its doors for col-
lective worship and thus transcends the private histories of its worshipers. How one may live in
both homes—standing firm in loyalty to hearth and blood, but open to the larger commitments
a divine dwelling symbolizes—is a question each reader must answer repeatedly.
ASHKENAZIM MALACHI3:4-24
SEPHARDIM MALACHI 3:4-24
For Malachi's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see "The Book of
Malachi" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the com-
ments on the haftarah for Toledot.
The haftarah presents God's word of promise to the nation sometime subsequent to the
rebuilding of the Temple in 515 B.C.E. The prophet announces that the sacrificial offerings will
again be favorably received, as in ancient times; but before that the Lord will contend against
the nation's breach of moral and ritual law and bring the sinners to judgment (for an earlier con-
demnation, see Malachi 1, in the haftarah for Toledot). Hope lies in repentance and observance
of the Torah. A redemptive role for the prophet Elijah is projected, who will return before the
day of judgment to restore the hearts of parents and children—a healing reconciliation between
the generations and with God (see Text and Comments). The dynamics and details of Malachi's
speech unfold through three separate parts.
Though composed of distinct sections, the prophecies are complexly structured and interrelated.
Parts 1 and 3 of the haftarah are structured around words of promise (Mai. 3:4, 24) and concerns
for judgment (mishpat) and rules (mishpatim) (w. 5, 22). In between are a variety of verbal plays
that create a rhetorical web of continuities and contrasts. For example, parts 1 and 2 are linked
by the thematic contrast between those who have no "fear" of God (yire^uni) (v. 5) and those
who do "revere" (yir'ei) Him (w. 16, 20); the former "are suffering under a curse" (ba-me'emh
'atem ne'arim [v. 9]), while the latter will come to "see" (re'iytem) their divine vindication (v. 9).
In a different vein, two contrasting types of "testing" God (bahan) appear in these parts (w. 10,
16); and reuse of the verb asher juxtaposes the "happiness" that the righteous will enjoy to their
present suffering and despair (w. 12, 15).
In another set of connections, parts 2 and 3 are linked by references to those who do and
do not "serve" God (coved [Mai. 3:14, 18]). as well as to His faithful "servant" ('avdi) Moses (v.
22). Further, two types of remembrance are mentioned: God's scroll of "remembrance" (zikaron
[v. 16]) and the general call to the people to be "mindful" (zikhru) ofMoses' Teaching (v. 22).
And finally, all three parts of the haftarah play on the verb shuv, "return." In the first part, God
calls upon Israel to "turn back" (shuvu [v. 7]); in the second, the righteous are told that they
shall "come" (ve-shavtem) to see God's justice (v. 18); and in the third, we learn that the great
task of Elijah is to "reconcile" (heshiv) the generations to one another (v. 24). In this setting, the
despairing words of the reverent, "It is useless \shav\ to serve God" (v. 14), is a jarring counter-
point—evoking a discordance between the divine and human voice.
From a broader perspective, verbal echoes integrate the central themes of the Book of Malachi
as a whole with those found in our haftarah. For example, the opening theme of condemnation
for those who scorn God's name and have no "reverence" for Him (mom'i [Mai. 1:6]) is resumed
at the end, where only those who "revere" God (yir'ei YHWH [3:16]) are promised protection
and victory on the "awesome" (nora}) day of judgment (3:23). Similarly, just as those who cheat
the Temple service are initially threatened with God's "curse" (me'emh) and the perversion of their
"blessings" (birkhotekhem) (2:2), also those who bear a "curse" (me'emh) are ultimately promised
bountiful "blessings" (berakhah) if they offer their dues to God in right measure (3:9-10). Thus
will God's lack of "pleasure" (hefetz) in ritual perversion (1:10) and His furious "ban" (go'er [2:
3]) of impure offerings be reversed. As reward for true service, God will "banish" (ga'arti) the
locusts (3:11) and turn Zion into the most "desired" (hefetz) of lands (3:12). The "offering"
(minhah [1:10]) that God once threatened to refuse from his despising "son" (ben [1:10]) will
again be accepted: "the offerings \minhah\ ofjudah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the L O R D "
(3:4), who shall be gracious to His "son" (beno) who serves Him in truth (3:17).
Overall, the theme of restoration predominates in the haftarah: the restoration of acceptable
offerings in the Temple (Mai. 3:4), the repair of the covenant through repentance (v. 7), the
renewal of trust in divine justice (v. 18), and the reconciliation of parents and children to God
and each other (v. 24). A deep sense of estrangement or disharmony thus pervades the present
order of things: disorder in society and in the divine-human relationship. Presumably a crisis of
trust in God's just providence has perverted the people's soul and led them to callous indifference
in the moral and cultic realms. This may be inferred from the poignant rebuke enunciated by the
prophet just prior to the beginning of our haftarah. As Malachi presents it, the people are quoted
as saying, "All who do evil are good in the sight of the LORD"; and they mockingly jibe, "Where
is the God of justice [mishpat]?" (2:17). To rebut this blasphemy, God comes to redress the cause
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 5 8
of "judgment" (mishpat [3:5]) and the God-fearers' sense that "It is useless to serve God" (v. 14).
However, so deep and retrograde is the people's rebellion that God finally announces that He
will send His prophet Elijah to renew their hearts (w. 23-24). This unilateral act of restoration
provides a final proof of God's "love" of lacob, pronounced at the beginning of the book.
COMMENTS
Malachi 3:4. Surely the offerings... shall be pleasing The term for offerings (minhah)
usually denotes cereal or grain offerings; Malachi uses it in the generic sense of gift. These of-
ferings will have a pleasing (:ve-'arvah) odor. Before the exile, leremiah provides a counterpoint
formulation: "Your burnt offerings are not acceptable [le-ratzon] / And your sacrifices are not
pleasing ['arvu] to Me" (ler. 6:20b; cf. ler. 14:12). 1 After the exile, a positive prophecy echoes
this denunciation—now, remarkably, to indicate divine acceptance of the offerings of foreigners;
see Isa. 56:7(cf.60:7).
5. Who practice sorcery... The condemnations of witches and false oaths and of the abuse
of widows, orphans, and strangers find their echoes in Exod. 22:17 and 19-21. 2 It is possible that
this list was known to the prophet in the "Teaching [Torah] ofMoses" known to him (3:22).
7. Turn back to Me, and I -will turn back to you This statement is a quid pro quo and
is explicated by God's promise that if the people "bring the full tithe" He will "pour down bles-
sings" upon them (v. 10). Thus, although the prophet began his divine rebuke with the general
statement that "you have turned away from My laws" (v. 7), the answer to the people's query
"How shall we turn back?" (v. 7) is given in terms of priestly dues. With this emphasis, there
is a return to the cultic theme of chapter 1 (along with the phrase "and you ask"; cf. 3:7-8 and
1 : 6 - 7 , 1 3 ) . The issue of benefits for divine service is continued in the promise given to the God-
fearers (see w. 1 4 , 1 7 - 1 8 ) . Malachi's exhortation presumes the people's ability to respond to
God's initiative. Compare the humble desire of the prayer in Lam. 5:21:"Take us back, O L O R D ,
to Yourself, and let us come back." In this case, the sinful heart requests God's help.
8. defraud Hebrew kabaa play on the name of lacob (v. 6); compare Gen. 27:36
[Transl.].
In tithe and contribution That is, the contributions to the priests from the new grain,
oil, and wine; see Num. 18:12 [Transl.]. The rules of tithing are complex and contradictory in
Pentateuchal sources. Leviticus 27:30-32 speaks of tithes of land produce and animals being sacred
by nature and due the priests; only land produce may be redeemed, but with a one-fifth penalty
tax added. Numbers 18:21-29 requires tithes to be given by Israelites to Levites in exchange
for their divine service and by Levites to Aaronids; nothing is specified regarding the source of
the tithe, how it was gathered, or its possible redemption. Deuteronomy 14:22-29 considers
tithes only from grain, wine, and oil; these are to be brought by Israelites to the central shrine for
their own consumption, with a proviso of permissible conversion of the gifts to money (without
penalty) during a pilgrimage. In addition, the law in Deuteronomy specifies that every third year
the tithe was to be left in local settlements for the poor, including the Levite, who was without
private property. The tithe is thus conceived here as a charity and not fixed payment.
The harmonious coordination of the sources is difficult3 and was subjected to intense rabbinic
examination.4 The Sages called the gifts to the priests and Levites the "first" and "second tithe,"
respectively; whereas the tithe of the third year was called the "third" or "poor tithe." Whether
on third years there were three tithes,5 or the last substituted for the second,6 double tithing
seems to have been required, and this was an onerous burden. Postexilic sources show attempts
to cheat on the dues (Mai. 3:10; Neh. 13:10). These sources also indicate different methods of
collection. According to Mai. 3:10, the tithes were brought to collection depots; Neh. 10:38-39
describes the Levites as collectors in the cities and fields.
10. thestorehouse That is, the public storehouse; see Neh. 13:10-13 [Transl.].
HAFTARAH FORFIRSTDAYOFROSHHASHANAH2 6 0
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE HAFTARAH
AND THE SPECIAL SABBATH
The phrase "Shabbat ha-Gadol" (Great Sabbath) is a formulation of rabbinic liturgy, found in
the special supplication (called retzeh) for the Sabbath day in the Grace after Meals. In context, it
marks out the special holiness of that day. The term also traditionally designates the Sabbath prior
to Passover, but in this setting its meaning is uncertain and has elicited much speculation. On one
view, reported in the ShibboleiHa-Leket compendium (thirteenth century), the designation has its
origin in the fact that on this Sabbath the people "tarry [in synagogue] to listen to the sermon of
the Rabbi [on the laws of Passover] until past noon, close to the afternoon Minhah service . . .
and this seems to them like a great and long day" (para. 205). 10 These Passover instructions
were also performed liturgically as "warnings"; the earliest evidence for them is tenth-century
Spain.11 Another explanation builds on a tradition that a "miracle" occurred when Israel took
their sheep from the flock on the tenth day of the month, in anticipation of the paschal offering
(see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael on Exod. 12:6). 12 According to the Midrash Tanhuma (Buber,
Bo' 18), this happened on a Sabbath, after the Egyptian firstborn threatened the Israelites with
death and the latter were wondrously saved. "Therefore," say the Ba'alei ha-Tosafot, the day "is
called Shabbat ha-Gadol because of the greatness \godel\ of the miracle" (Da'at Zekenim, to
Exod. 12:3; also Tosafot to B. Shabbat 87b, s. v. ve-'oti).
This late interpretation of the name of the day does not clarify the choice of Mai. 3:4-24
as its haftarah. Presumably, that prophetic reading was either unknown or disregarded by such
authorities; for were it known, the designation there of God's day of judgment as gadol would
have been a sufficient explanation. One may therefore suppose that the liturgical selection was
originally due to thematic features linking this reading with the season. One likelihood is that the
choice reflects the old tradition that the future redemption would occur on Passover, its prototype
(B. Rosh Hashanah 11a). Since the haftarah could be construed to herald God's great day, it was
proclaimed in hope and warning before the festival itself. The term "Shabbat ha-Gadol" would
then simply be a shorthand designation for saying that on this Sabbath the haftarah proclaim-
ing the final "great" (gadol) day is read—much like the formulation "Shabbat Shuvah," which
designates the Sabbath prior to Yom Kippur when the theme of repentence (teshuvah) is stressed
through a haftarah selection beginning with the word shuvah ("return" [Hos. 14:2]).
Another feature ofMal. 3:4-24 would have reinforced the rabbinic selection, and that is its
particular focus on the tithe obligations. Indeed, according to the Mishnah, "on Passover [the
people] are judged with respect to [their] produce" (M. Rosh Hashanah 1.2); that is to say, at
this time a divine determination of earthly blessing is made. The choice of this period naturally
reflects a situation at the beginning of a farming cycle. But the Sages took this occasion to stress
the relationship between tithes and divine beneficence (B. Shabbat 32b) and significantly con-
clude their discussion with a citation from Mai. 3:10 ("put Me to the test"). 13 Now since the law
required tithes from agricultural produce gathered prior to Passover,14 recitation of our haftarah
on the Sabbath before the festival would duly warn the people to fulfill their obligations to God
and the poor and thus merit divine favor in the ensuing year. The custom of giving charitable
gifts (ma'ot hittim) at this time, so that the needy may have grain for matzah, continues the
relationship between philanthropy and piety at the Passover season. The haftarah thus signals
that gifts have a divine dimension. From this perspective, Shabbat ha-Gadol calls attention to
an ultimate or "great" accountability that all creatures bear for the resources of the earth and the
sacred task of their redistribution.
Don Isaac Abravanel evoked another aspect of the messianic theme of this day when he stressed
that the Sages called the future spiritual world of ultimate perfection a "Great Sabbath."15 In this
light, Shabbat ha-Gadol anticipates that great day and calls the Jew to a reordering of spiritual
tasks. In hasidic piety, this also meant an "enlargement" (gadlut) of one's awareness to the reality
of God. One great master, Rabbi Menahem Nahum of Chernobyl (1730-1797), even went so
far as to say that this inner dimension is the full expansion of the divine "Day" in human con-
261 HAFTARAH FOR SHABBAT S H E K A L I M
sciousness. In this regard, he alludes to the great messianic day in Mai. 3:23 and offers a striking
interpretation of the present-active force of the verb "send" (sholeah) used in connection with
Elijah's advent ("before the coming of the . . . day of the LORD"). Spiritualizing the prophecy, he
suggests that all persons have an Elijah quality, which continually awakens their desire for God,
and that this inner call is a divine grace that elicits a process of spiritual search and prepares for
the realization of God's Presence on earth. For this hasidic master, Malachi's word signals an
invitation to each individual to overcome the fragmentation of self and realize the fullness of one's
divine nature. On a public plane, this prophecy on Shabbat ha-Gadol is a liturgical reminder to
heed a deeper wisdom, whose personal fulfillment has a messianic dimension. 16
ASHKENAZIM ZECHARIAH2:14-4:7
SEPHARDIM ZECHARIAH 2:14-4:7
For text and commentary, see the haftarah for Va-yak-hel (Ashkenazim)-Pekudei (Sephardim).
ASHKENAZIM I S A M U E L I: 1 - 2 : 1 0
SEPHARDIM I S A M U E L I: 1 - 2 : 1 0
For the structure and contents of the Book of Samuel and a consideration of its overall historiogra-
phy and theology, see "The Book of Samuel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." See also the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from
this book (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah deals with the birth of Samuel and his dedication to lifelong service at the
shrine of Shiloh, in fulfillment of his mother Hannah's vow to God while still barren. Though
the cherished wife of Elkanah, Hannah was despondent over her inability to bear a child and
repeatedly expressed her anguish to the Lord during the family's annual pilgrimage to Shiloh.
On one of those occasions, she encounters Eli the priest and reveals her plight. In response he
invokes God's fulfillment of her desire, and a son is born in due course. The narrative is sup-
plemented by Hannah's exuberant song of thanksgiving to the Lord.
The episode appears at the beginning of the Book of Samuel—immediately after the depictions
of tribal anarchy (when "there was no king in Israel" [Judg. 21:25]) that conclude the Book of
Judges. It is followed by the rise of Saul to kingship (ca. 1020 B.C.E.). The haftarah thus marks a
transition from the period of the chieftains (with its loose tribal confederacy) to that of the mo-
narchy (and its centralized institutions) through its account of the birth of Samuel—who bridges
both periods. He is at once the last honest "judge" of the first stage and the person to whom
the tribes turn when they desire a king "to judge us" (1 Sam. 7:15-8:5). At God's instigation
he first anoints Saul (1 Sam. 10:1); and later, after that monarch's fall from grace, he sanctions
David as the successor (1 Sam. 16:12-13).
COMMENTS
1 Samuel 1:1. Ramathaim ofthe Zuphites Elsewhere (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11; 7:17) the town
is called Ramah. In antiquity, Eusebius identified it with Rempthis (modern Rentis, sixteen miles
east of Tel Aviv), on the western slope of the hills of Ephraim, 7 but the precise location remains
uncertain.8 Zuph is the greater district (cf. 1 Sam. 9:5). Basing itself on the biblical designation
of prophets as tzofim (Ezek. 33:7), an old and persistent rabbinic tradition read the line to mean
that Elkanah was from prophetic circles (see Targum lonathan, Rashi, R. loseph Kara, Kimhi,
and Ralbag). According to 1 Chron. 6:12, Elkanah was a Levite.
3. Shiloh Modern Khirbet Seilun, about twenty miles northeast of lerusalem. It was
an early shrine center.9 loshua set up the Tabernacle there (losh. 18:1), and the Ark remained
there (with brief exceptions) until it was captured by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). On its re-
turn, however, the Ark went to Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam. 7:1-2). Shiloh remained an important
site in the prophetic tradition, most notably through the figure of Ahijah (1 Kings 11:29-39;
14:1-18). Later tradition referred to God's abandonment of Shiloh as a shrine (Ps. 78:60); and
leremiah mentions the fate of this shrine as proof that God could do the same to His Temple
in lerusalem (ler. 7:12-15). leremiah was himself descended from the Shilonite priestly line
of Eli (as a priest from Anathoth, he was presumably related to the family of Abiathar; cf. ler.
1:1 and 1 Kings 2:26-27).
5. one portion only—though The meanings of "only" (Heb. 'apayim) and "though"
(Heb. ki) are disputed in this context. Based on the Targum, Kimhi suggested that Elkanah
gave Hannah "an honored portion to calm her anger \'apeyha\ and wrath." Others suggest that
HAFTARAH FOR FIRST DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH 268
Hannah accepted the portion with good grace or "countenance," severpanim (R. Joseph Kara,
following R. Menahem ben Helbo). 10 Modern speculations connect it with a "paim" or unit of
weight. 11 The NJPS translation echoes the Septuagint (B) readingphn hoti, "except that," which
was apparently based on a Hebrew text reading 'ephes ki.12 The expression reflects a restrictive
share given by Elkanah to Hannah, though he loved her well. Alternatively, ifapayim refers to
a "double face" or "portion," the particle ki would mean "since" (i. e., Elkanah gave Hannah
special treatment "for he loved her" [OJPS]).
9. after they had eaten... Hannah rose NJPS suggests a plural verb, followed by Han-
nah's action; but the subject is Hannah, and the verb "had eaten" is 'okhlah (in the singular).
Rashi correctly notes that this cannot be a simple past tense, since it lacks a mapik (or dot) in the
final letter (heh) to indicate a possessive pronoun (i. e., "after her eating"). He suggests that it is
the absolute form of the verb (with a heh ending). This opinion is supported by the verb shatoh
(drunk) that follows. Thus: "after she had eaten and drunk . . . Hannah arose."
11. if You willgrant... I will dedicate Hebrew }im . . . ve-natata . . . u-netativ. The
language is that of a vow formula. See Num. 21:2 and Judg. 11:30-31. Hannah vows a male
issue to be a nazirite, by alluding to one of the rules of that status ("no razor shall ever touch
his head"; cf. Num. 6:5). There is no other indication in biblical sources that one could make a
vow that another be a nazirite—especially before that other was born—and that the status could
be lifelong. The case of Samson is different, for his status is a divine designation (like Jeremiah's
status as a prophet from the womb [Jer. 1:5]). 13 No time period is indicated. In ancient rabbinic
law, it is explicitly stated: "A man may vow his son as a nazirite, but a woman may not vow her
son as a nazirite" (M. Nazir 4:4). This rule does not directly contradict Scripture, for the pos-
sibility of vowing an unborn child is not specifically mentioned. Nevertheless, R. David Kimhi
was much puzzled by Hannah's action.
13. Now Hannah was praying Hannah's private prayer came to serve as a model for
prayer more generally. "Rav Hamnuna said: How many important rules can be deduced from
Hannah's prayer! That 'Hannah was praying in her heart' teaches that prayer requires devotion
of the heart; that 'only her lips moved' teaches that one must articulate the words of prayer with
one's lips; that 'her voice could not be heard' teaches that one may not raise one's voice in prayer;
[and] that 'Eli thought she was drunk' teaches that it is forbidden for an intoxicated person to pray"
(B. Berakhot 31a). The talmudic passage adds moral rules that may be deduced from features of
Hannah's discourse, and an extended midrashic analysis of the prayer itselfprovides R. Eleazar
an occasion to demonstrate various strategies of prayer used by Hannah (ibid., 31a-b).
On the phrase "And Hannah prayed" (1 Sam. 2:1), a late tradition preserved in the Yalkut
Shimoni (2, Samuel, 80) observed: "This teaches that woman are obligated to pray, for Hannah
used to pray eighteen blessings." This point is in substance derived from Midrash Lekah Tov
(Va-ethannan), where Hannah's song is said to include eighteen blessings—the name (Shemoneh
Esreh) that designates the central Amidah prayer of Jewish liturgy. The details of this observation
are spelled out and correlated with the Amidah prayer by the Yalkut Shimoni in a remarkable
tour de force.
17. and may the God of Israelgrant "May . . . grant," Hebrew yitten. This alludes to
the vow in verse 11. However, the Hebrew verb need not be construed as a wish or blessing. It
can also be read as a prophetic premonition, that is, "the God of Israel will grant" (cf. Kimhi;
Abravanel), or even as an assertion of the success ofher prayer (Rashi).
19. knew Hebrewjy#^»f, often in a sexual sense [Transl.].
20. Samuel Connected with sha'ul me'el, "asked of God"; compare 1:17 and 27-28
[Transl.].
23.fulfill His word Aphrase regularly used for divine prophecy. See Deut. 9:5; 2 Sam.
7:25; and 1 Kings 2:4. This would suggest that the word ofEli was understood by Hannah as
a prophecy (see note on v. 17; and cf. Kimhi). This prophetic formula may be a pious revision
For Jeremiah's life and times and a consideration of his theology and literary style, see "The
Book of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also
the introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from Jeremiah's prophecies
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is part of a collection of consolation oracles found in Jeremiah 30-32. According
to the superscription (Jer. 30:2-3), these oracles deal with the return oflsrael (the northern tribes)
271 HAFTARAH FOR SECOND DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH
and Judah (the southern tribes) to their homeland. Prophecies addressed to both groups begin
this collection (30:4-17), with others to either Israel or ludah following thereafter (see 30:18-31:
22 and 31:23-39, respectively). Each of the main sections of this collection are introduced by
the formula "Thus said the LORD" (ler. 30:5, 18; 31:2s). 1 This formula also begins our haftarah
(ler. 31:2), which closes with the authorizing assertion "declares the LORD" (v. 20).
The haftarah emphasizes God's love for Israel and His promises to restore the nation to
its homeland. This divine commitment is portrayed as ancient and ongoing—beginning with
the Exodus from Egypt and continuing through the exile. In two dominant images, this care
is marked by paternal terms: in one, God is deemed "ever a Father to Israel" (ler. 31:9); in the
other, Ephraim is called His "first-born" and "dear son" (w. 9, 20). Because of this relationship,
God says that He will deliver the people from the nations and will respond to their words of
lament and remorse. By contrast, a poignant maternal image gives expression to the mourning
of the ancestral mother of Ephraim for her absent children. Rachel cries out in "bitter weeping"
and inconsolable sorrow for the nation in exile (v. 15). This grief is assuaged by God Himself,
who comforts her with an announcement of the people's return to their homeland, and His own
feelings of mercy—evoked by Ephraim's prayer for divine acceptance (w. 18-19).
The prophecy ends with words of divine assurance, in which God says that His thoughts
are ever with Ephraim: that He remembers him (zakhor ezkerenu) with favor and "will receive
him back in love" (ler. 31:20). This formulation of divine remembrance is one of the key verses
recited during the Rosh Hashanah ( M u s a f ) liturgy, wherein the people hope to elicit God's
ongoing care and love.
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 31:2. In some Bible editions, this verse is labeled as the first verse in the
chapter.
The people escaped from the sword, / Found favor in the wilderness Traditionally, this
passage has been connected to national events following the Exodus. The reference to the wil-
derness is taken as alluding to the trek in the desert for forty years and the motif of the sword as
273 HAFTARAH FOR SECOND DAY OF ROSH HASHANAH
indicating the battles with the Amalekites and Canaanites. For such historicizations, see Rashi
and Kimhi.
When Israel was marching homeward NJPS interprets the Hebrew expression le-hargi'o
paraphrastically, with the nation assumed to be the subject and the pronoun suffix (o) function-
ing reflexively. Alternatively, God is the (implied) subject of the action and the people of Israel
the direct object indicated by the pronoun suffix. On this reading, it is He who brings Israel
to its rest (margo'a) in the Promised Land (so Rashi and Kimhi, following the Targum). The
hif'il form of tile verb suggests that God will give His people—a remnant "escaped from the
sword"—physical rest from their suffering (cf. Deut. 28:65; ler. 50:34). For a similar verbal
form, compare va-ha-riho, "and inspire him with reverence for the LORD" (Isa. 11:3, which is
interpreting v. 2; cf. Rashi).5
According to Rashi and Luzzatto,6 the prophecy is delivered by the prophet himself; whereas
Targum lonathan, Kimhi, and Abravanel assume the speaker to be lerusalem.
3. The LORD revealed Himself to me ofold The Masoretic text implies that the object of
the revelation ("me" [/?]) is leremiah. But many interpreters follow the Septuagint here and read
"him" [&]. Either reading would fit with God's ensuing statement of grace and love for Israel
since the Exodus (cf. ler. 2:2:"I accounted to your favor the devotion of your youth, your love
as a bride-how you followed Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown").
The term me-mhok may have the meaning "of old" (cf. Isa. 22:11; Targum lonathan and R.
Isaiah di Trani). Alternatively, it may be construed spatially; that is, "from afar" (Luzzatto). 7
I continue Mygrace to you Hebrew misha-khtikh hesed. This idiom has a positive connota-
tion. SeePs. 36:ll:"Bestow Your faithful care \meshokh hasdekha] on those devoted to You" (also
Hos. 11:4). In a negative formulation, the verb is used to express anger (cf. PS. 85:6).
4. again Hebrew 'od. This adverb is used repeatedly in the haftarah (cf. w. 4-5, 12,
20) and elsewhere in leremiah's prophecies of consolation (ler. 32:15; 33:10, 12-13). See the
discussion under Content and Meaning.
5. Men shall plant and live to enjoy them Hebrew nate'u note'im ve-hillelu (lit., "Planters
shall plant and harvest [the produce]"). This verse gives a positive turn to the curse intoned in
Deut. 28:30, "If you plant \tittac\ a vineyard, you shall not harvest it." In turn, this curse subverts
the rule formulated in Deut. 20:6 (in connection with conditions of exemption from war): "Is
there anyone who has planted a vineyard but has never harvested it?" leremiah's point here is that
the people who shall plant shall themselves reap the produce, and not another (Luzzatto).8
6. watchmen Hebrew notzerim. The prophet has chosen a word that is used elsewhere to
indicate planting (cf. v. 5). See Isa. 11:1, netzer mi-shamshav (a twig . . . from his stock), and espe-
cially Prov. 27:18, woteer te'eina-hyo'kha-lpiry-ah (He who plants a fig tree will enjoy its fruit). 9
7. Save, OLORD The imperative verb hosha' (save) seems difficult in the mouth of the
nations. For this reason, many commentators prefer tile Septuagint reading, "The LORD has
saved."10 Luzzatto considers the verbal form to be an absolute, used here with a past sense. This
suggestion yields the same result as the Septuagint version.11
9. For I am ever a Father to Israel This usage echoes an adoption formula commonly
found in royal and covenantal contexts. Compare 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; and Hos. 2:25.
15. Rachel weeping This verse inspired a midrash on the merit of Rachel, who intercedes
before God in connection with Manasseh's sins. God responds mercifully, saying: "You defended
[Israel] well; there is recompense for your labor and righteousness when you gave your [marital]
tokens to your sister" (see Rashi). In this way rabbinic tradition explained the thematic conjunc-
tion of verses 15 and 16 (and the reference in v. 16 to "your labor" with the feminine suffix).
18. Tou have chastised me,andl am chastised Hebrewyissartaniva-'iwaser. The verb yasar
has the sense of punishment; it is used here in the sense of accepting punishment or discipline.
Haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah (Sabbath before Yom Kippur) HDl^ fQ^
For the life and times of Hosea, Joel, and Micah and a consideration of their prophetic message
and theology, see the discussions of each of these books in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted
in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the other haftarah readings taken from Hosea
and Micah's works (listed in "Index of Biblical Passages").
The haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah, the special Sabbath of Repentance before Yom Kippur, takes
its initial selection from Hos. 14:2-10. The focus of that passage is a call for human repentance
and the promise of divine healing and sustenance for those who have returned to God. Many
Ashkenazim conclude with a selection from loel 2:15-27, which introduces rituals of penitence
and another promise of divine restoration; most Sephardim (and some Ashkenazim) add a selec-
tion from Mic. 7:18-20, which celebrates God's attributes of mercy and forgiveness of sins. Both
codas thus reinforce the opening passage by adducing material from the anthology of twelve
prophetic books called the Trei 'Asar (or "The Twelve"). The combination of nonconsecutive
passages occurs several times during the annual haftarah cycle, either within the same prophetic
book or within a single scroll.1 "The Twelve" was considered one unit for such liturgical purposes.
This collection of prophecies follows the works of Isaiah, leremiah, and Ezekiel and forms the
conclusion to the Latter Prophets. Because of the brevity of the books in the Trei'Asar,they are
also designated the Minor Prophets. This is an attribution of quantity, not quality.
The superscription to the Book of Hosea (Hos. 1:1) indicates that this prophet spoke to his com-
patriots in the north ("Ephraim") during the reign of King leroboam H (789-748 B.C.E.). According
to Mic. 1:1, Micah was a ludean contemporary who prophesied against Samaria and lerusalem. The
Book of loel is undated, but internal features and considerations of language suggest that the speaker
was a postexilic prophet who flourished sometime in the sixth to fifth century B.C.E.
The haftarah is dominated by the opening call for repentance in Hos. 14:2. This sets the tone
and framework for all that follows. It introduces Hosea's instruction of a liturgy of confession
and supplication through which the people may be reconciled with God (Hos. 1 4 : 3 - 4 ) ; it sets
the context for Joel's call to "solemnize a fast" for all the nation and have the priests beseech
God for mercy in the Temple court (Joel 2 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) ; and it precedes Micah's proclamation of the
divine attributes of gracious forgiveness (Mic. 7 : 1 8 - 1 9 ) . The prophetic word exhorts the people
collectively, calling upon them to "repent" by means of the singular and plural command forms
shuvah and shuvu (Hos. 14:2 and 3, respectively). The subsequent acts of confession, prayer,
and declaration then address God in more personal terms—appealing to Him with covenantal
intimacy and trust (cf. "Since in Tou alone orphans find pity!" [Hos. 1 4 : 4 ] ; "Oh, spare Tour
people, LORD!" [Joel 2 : 1 7 ] ; and "Who is a God like Tou!" [Mic. 7 : 1 8 ] ) .
Hosea's call for repentance opens the discourse, but it is, in fact, the hinge of a human-divine
dynamic. The prophet captures this by plays on the verb shuv (turn, repent). His opening appeal
to "return to" God (shuvah . . . 'ad [Hos. 14:1] and shuvu }el [v. 2]) is a call to the people to turn
from their sin and rebellion. This point is boldly captured in the sequel where God states that,
consequent to the people's initiative of repentance, He "will heal their backsliding [meshuvatamY
and take them back in love—for His "anger has turned [shavY from them (v. 5).2 The end result
of such divine favor will be a period of national restoration and renewal. Not only will Israel be
healed, but "they who sit \yoshevei\ in his shade shall be revived [ynshuvuY as well (v. 8). God's
blessing to the people will sustain all who come in contact with them.
Turning and transformation are thus the deep structure of the first part of the haftarah—em-
bracing the people's turning from sin to God, and God's turning from wrath to loving care.
As part of the process, several liturgical features are indicated. The first occurs in Hos. 14:2-3,
where the prophet tells the people to come to God with "words" of confession and penitence.
Appealing to Him to "Forgive all guilt [kol tissa} 'avon]n and accept their acts of contrition (see
Notes and Comments), they reject reliance upon foreign nations and gods ("no more will we";
"nor ever again will we" [v. 4])—devoting themselves instead to the only One who sustains and
aids the needy ("since in Tou alone orphans find pity" [v. 4]). The confession thus enunciates a
radical monotheism: a turning to the God oflsrael as the sole power of love, forgiveness, and
salvation.
Coming after Hosea's instruction in repentance, the liturgical instructions of Joel articulate
a deeper ritual structure: a shofar blast to assemble the nation for fasting and purification, and
the priests' supplication to God on behalf of His people. This intercessory prayer of "the L O R D ' S
ministers" (Joel 2:17) adds an official voice to the people's confession in Hos. 14:2-3—a priestly
offering of the lips, "instead of bulls" (cf. Hos. 14:3). And just as the popular confession in
Hosea is greeted by divine love and healing (Hos. 14:5-9), so the cry of loss in Joel is answered
by God's compassion and care for His land and His people (Joel 2:18-27).
By contrast, the liturgical proclamation of divine forgiveness in Mic. 7:18-20 supplements
Hos. 14:2-10 in a different way. Here God's assertion of care is climaxed by a human declaration
of divine incomparability. "Who is a God like You, forgiving iniquity [nose}'avon] and remitting
transgression!" (Mic. 7:18). These words echo the words of supplication spoken earlier ("Forgive
all guilt [kol tissa''avon]n [Hos. 14:3])—but now evoke the confidence of those who feel forgiven.
Moreover, the assertion that "He will take us back in love [yashuvyimhamenu]" (Mic. 7:19)—or
"He will again have compassion upon us" (OJPS)—echoes the polyvalent uses of the verb shuv
in the prophecy of Hosea and the people's confession there that in God alone "orphans find pity
[yeruham]" (Hos. 14:4). These intertextual resonances bring the haftarah recited by Sephardim
to its conclusion. The final words express confidence in divine care because of ancient promises
and commitments made to the patriarchs. Paradoxically, they shift attention away from God's
gracious love (hesed,) for the sinner (Mic. 7:18) to His transcendent loyalty (hesed,) to ancestral
obligations (v. 20). 3
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book oflsaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the several haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is part of the prophesies of consolation and exhortation addressed to the Ju-
dean community in the final decades of the sixth century B.C.E., after Cyrus the Mede conquered
Babylon and issued a decree (in 538 B.C.E.) that permitted subject populations to return to their
native lands and ancestral practices.1 It is unclear whether this group of prophecies is addressed
to Judeans still in exile or to members of the restored community in Zion.
The people are told of God's concern for the contrite and His healing forgiveness for the
meek in spirit. This word of hope is followed by an exhortation and instruction to the House
oflsrael. The people are told that though they seek God daily, they are nevertheless mindless of
their duplicity and evil deeds. In an attempt to shatter the crust of ritual formalism and moral
blindness, a teaching of proper piety follows. If the people hear and take these words to heart,
the prophet promises them the light of God's presence and the healing waters of renewal. A
concluding word celebrates the Sabbath as a sign of a correct religious consciousness and com-
mitment to God.
The main concern of the haftarah is to inculcate a transformation of religious consciousness and
action. The Lord calls to the prophet: "Clear a road! Remove all obstacles from the road of My
people!" (Isa. 57:14). This road is not a physical highway leading from exile to the homeland,
but a path of inner renewal—leading from "greed" to a "contrite" spirit (57:15-17) and from
duplicity and strife to compassion andjustice (58:3-7, 9-10). Inwardness involves the cultiva-
tion of humility and empathy, and these virtues are the keystone of a rebuilt religious life. God
will bless such behavior with light and healing (57:18-19; 58:8, 10-11).
The theme of a "road" or "way" (derekh) coordinates the dynamics of the instruction. Twice
at the very outset does God exhort the prophet to "build up a highway \panu da-rekhY and to
"remove all obstacles from the road [derekh] of My people" (Isa. 57:14)—both being metaphors
for the path of repentance. God condemns outright those of the people who "follow the way
[derekh] of their hearts" (57:17); 2 yet He notes their "way [darko]" (NJPS: "how they fare")
and determines to "heal them" (v. 18). The transgressors dissemble—seeking God daily, eager
to learn His "ways [derakhai]" (58:2)—even as they mistreat the needy and act with oppression.
Their quest thus falls flat. Only acts of compassion and charity will restore them to God, as well
as sanctification of the Sabbath day, when they devote themselves to God and not go their own
"ways [derakhekha]" for pleasure or gain (58:13).
To implement his pedagogical purpose, the prophet invests his language with wordplays that
create webs of intertextual signification that reinforce and connect the divine teachings. Particularly
notable are the associations generated by the people's contention against God: "Why, when we
fasted \tzamnu\, did You not see? When we starved our bodies ['iniynu nafsheinu], did You pay
no heed?" (Isa. 58:3a). These questions are provoked by the people's search for God—"eager
\yehpntzuri\ to learn [His] ways" and "eager \yehpntzuri\ for the nearness" of Him (58:2). The
reason for the divine rejection is clear: "Because on your fast day \tzomkhem\ you see to your
business [hephetz] . . . . Because you fast in strife and contention [la-riv u-matzah tatzumu] (58:
3b-4). The double meanings of the stem hafetz, to indicate a religious search and business
transactions, compresses the people's duplicity into one multivalent term; similarly, the jarring
conjunction of matzah (contention) with tatzumu (you fast) brings together the opposites so
condemned by God.
The diatribe takes another turn through a rhetoric of question and answer. First the people
are asked, "Is such the fast [tzom] I desire, a day for men to starve their bodies ['anot nafsho]?"
282 HAFTARAH FOR YOM KIPPUR MORNING
(Isa. 58:5). The details of a physical fast and expressions of mortification serve to set up the
new teaching: "No, this is the fast [tzom] I desire: to unlock fetters of wickedness . . . to share
your bread with the hungry, and to take the wretched poor ['aniyim] into your home" (58:6-7).
Only then will the Lord "answer [ya'aneh]" the people's call (58:9)—only when "you offer your
compassion [nafshekha] to the hungry and satisfy the famished creature [nefesh]" (58:10) will the
Lord "guide you" and "will slake your thirst [nafshekha] in parched places" (v. 11).
The instruction that God will answer only those who help the poor captures the essence of
the prophet's words—twisting the people's own contention into a teaching of righteousness. At
the conclusion, the commitment to God is condensed into an injunction to uphold the sanctity
of the Sabbath. The people are enjoined to honor it and not look to their "affairs [heftzekha]"
(Isa. 58:13). It is such a commitment that is desired, and not an eagerness for the nearness of
God (cf. 58:2).
The prophet's rhetoric uses the misuse of fasting in order to stress social responsibility. He does
not condemn such ritual acts outright. Rather, it is the duplicity of piety that is condemned— par-
ticularly when performed alongside acts of oppression and wickedness. God does not desire such
behavior any more than He condones "assemblies with iniquity aven va-'atzamhY (Isa. 1:13).
Ritual must be grounded in moral sensibility and action. The prophet's transvaluation of self-af-
fliction into acts of charity revolutionizes the religious life. Compassion is thus elevated to a path
of piety, a religious attitude that arises from a lowly spirit to encompass all those in need.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 57:14. [ The LORD] says The speaker is unspecified. The assumption that God is
the speaker (R. loseph Kara; R. Eliezer of Beaugency) joins this verse to verse 15. Such a reading
reinforces the literary coherence of the haftarah, which begins at verse 14. A Masoretic tradition
puts a setumah, or minor paragraph break, after verse 14—a sign that connects this verse to the
preceding one and assumes that the speaker is the one who "trusts" in God in verse 13 (Kimhi).
Alternatively, it is the prophet who speaks God's word (Rashi).
Build up, build up Doubling of words is a stylistic hallmark of Isaiah 40-66. Compare
Isa. 40:1; 51:9, 12, 17; 52:1; 57:19. This feature serves to reinforce the speech (see Kimhi on
Isa. 40:1).
15. He who high aloft / Forever dwells Hebrew ram ve-nisa} shokhen 'ad. A depiction
of divine transcendence that is joined to a statement of immanence. These are the two poles of
biblical theology.
Tet -with the contrite and the lowly ofspirit Despite His exalted status, God is present
to the lowly as well (Kimhi; R. loseph Kaspi). Elsewhere this theology is expressed in liturgy:
"The LORD is close to the brokenhearted; those crushed in spirit He delivers" (Ps. 34:19). Later
rabbinic teachings repeatedly celebrated this combination of divine attributes (B. Sotah 5a; Tan-
huma Va-yera' 2; Yalkut Shimoni 1:856). Medieval lewish moral literature considers contrition
and a lowly spirit to exemplify the ideal ofhumility and frequently invokes this passage.
17. their Thatis, oflsrael, "Mypeople" (v. 14) [Transl.].
19. It shall be well, / Well with thefar and the near God's blessing of shalom is extended
to all those who merit divine healing and comfort (v. 18). An old tradition interpreted "the far"
as the righteous who observe the Torah from "of old," and "the near" as those who repent and
now turn to Torah (Targum lonathan; and later, R. Isaiah di Trani). R. Abbahu used this passage
to exalt the newly penitent over the righteous (B. Berakhot 34b), but Rashi stressed that "both
are equal," as the formulation suggests.
20. the wicked are like the troubled sea The image is one of agitation, violently buffeted to
and fro (Ibn Bil'am).3 The inner turbulence gives them no rest and keeps them far from God.
For text and commentary for Jonah 1:1-4:11, see Uriel Simon, TheJPS Bible Commentary: Jonah
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999).
For text and commentary for Micah 7:18-20, see haftarah for Shabbat Shuvah.
ASHKENAZIM ZECHARIAH14:1-21
SEPHARDIM Z E C H A R I A H 14:1-21
For the life and times of Zechariah and a consideration of his teachings and theology, see "The
Book of Zechariah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also
the comments to the other haftarah reading taken from this book (listed in "Index of Biblical
Passages").
Zechariah 14:1-21 is a late prophecy, deriving from sometime after 518 B.C.E. (Zech. 7:1).
In its present context, this material concludes the anthology of visions and oracles that compose
the Book of Zechariah. 1 The haftarah is marked by a strong apocalyptic tone of impending doom
and purification. A repeated emphasis on "that day" of divine judgment conveys a tone of expec-
tation and inevitability.2 The city of lerusalem stands at the center of these prophecies—having
a pivotal place in the wars to come and in the universal pilgrimage proclaimed for all nations.
When the battles conclude, the Lord will be king and all peoples shall be invited to celebrate the
Festival of Sukkot in lerusalem. A prophecy that begins with visions of siege ends with a sacred
convocation and worship.
The themes of Zechariah 14 climax the preceding two chapters, where an apocalyptic climate
is also evoked. Zechariah 12 and 13 are also marked by repeated emphasis on "that day" when
there shall be battles in lerusalem (Zech. 12:3-4, 6) and divine might will bring victory over
Israel's enemies (12:1-2,4). "In that day" heavenly blessings shall come (13:1) and the land will
be purified of idols and false prophecy (13:2, 4). Seen altogether, Zechariah 12-14 constitutes
a distinct thematic ensemble. These chapters also provide a climax for the key topics envisioned
in the opening prophecies of the book: the return of God to Zion, after a seventy-year curse (1:
12-17; 2:14-17); the destruction of the destroyers through military might (2:1-4; cf. 6:1-8);
the banishment of evil from the earth (5:5-8); and the worship of the Lord by all nations in
lerusalem (2:15; 8:20-23). 3 Zechariah 14 reformulates these themes in a distinctive manner.
COMMENTS
Zechariah 14:l.your Jerusalem is addressed [Transl.].
4. He -will setHisfeet God appears as a warrior in battle. The stark anthropomorphism
recalls Amos 9:1, in which the prophet envisages the "Lord standing by [or: on] the altar"
prophesying doom. The divine manifestation for battle in Hab. 3:6 has God make the earth shake
"when He stands" and the nations tremble "when He glances." Medieval commentators preferred
to see in God's standing a metaphor for the mighty permanence of divine effects (Maimonides,
Guidefor thePerplexed 1:13; and cf. Tanhum ha-Yerushalmi)8 or a figure dramatizing the splitting
of the earth (Kimhi, developing Ibn Ezra).
5. stopped up Vocalizing ve-nistam with Targum, Septuagint, and an old Hebrew manu-
script. Other manuscripts and printed editions read, "You [pi.] shall flee [to] the Valley in the
Hills . . . . You shall flee as you fled because of the earthquake . . ." [Transl.].
the earthquake in the days ofKing Uzziah Mentioned in Amos 1:1, but otherwise un-
known. Josephus elaborates the event, linking it to Uzziah's sinful offering of incense in the Shrine
(2 Chron. 26:16-20) and using details from Zech. 14:5 (see-Antiquities 9:10, 4, par. 222-25).
6. nor cold moonlight Hebrewyekarotve-kipa'on (keri) is difficult. NJPS interpretsyekarot
as a figure for moonlight based on Job 31:26 (and see Kimhi's explication) and combines it with
the term for cold. This grammatical construction is exceptional. The Septuagint seems to have
known a Hebrew text reading ve-kamtve-kipa'on, since it gives the translation "nor cold and ice"
(cf. the Peshitta). The Targum's 'adi, "treasure," renders yekarot as an abstract noun for wealth. 9
The text remains obscure. 10
8. Eastern Sea... Western Sea This refers to the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea,
respectively. Compare Joel 2:20.
9. one LORD with one name That is, the LORD alone shall be worshiped and shall be
invoked by His true name [Transl.]. The phrase prophesies a universal monotheism, when God's
Name will be proclaimed by all (cf. Rashi). It is cited at the end of the Alenu prayer and thus
serves as a liturgical climax to virtually every Jewish service. One may observe the literal reso-
nance between the phrase "one L O R D " and the conclusion to the Shema proclamation (Deut. 6:
4) that avers that "the LORD is one" or "alone" (NJPS; see Rashbam and Ibn Ezra). Zechariah
may well be citing this ancient formula, giving it an eschatological dimension. What Israelites
affirm in the present is projected as universal reality in the time to come. (Cf. Micah 4:5, which
foresaw a different reality.)
Following an old rabbinic tradition (see B. Pesahim 50a), Ibn Ezra understood the promise
of "one name" more literally. He interpreted Zechariah to mean that in the end of days there will
no longer be two forms of the divine Name—one, the Tetragrammaton YHWH, written but
unvocalized, and the other, the n&meAdonai, vocalized but unwritten—but one alone. Jewish
mystical tradition considered the unification of these two forms a holy mystery and a matter of
profound contemplative concern. The hasidic masters also developed penetrating homilies on
the relations between the names, seeing in their difference the mystery of divine transcendence
and immanence.
10. become like theArabah That is, all the earth will be depressed like the Arabah (the
Jordan Valley), and Jerusalem will predominate above all, like a high mountain (Rashi).
For this haftarah's introduction, Content and Meaning, and its text with commentary, see the
haftarah for Pekudei for Ashkenazim.
This haftarah is the same as the one for Pekudei for Ashkenazim (1 Kings 7:51-8:21) except that
it begins two verses later. The outline of this haftarah differs only slightly, as follows:
For an introduction to Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology,
see "The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
See also the comments to other haftarot taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index of Biblical
Passages").
Ezekiel 38:18-39:16 is part of an extended prophecy of doom against "Gog of the land of
Magog" found in Ezekiel 38-39. This judgment follows oracles of hope for Israel's national res-
toration and purification (Ezekiel 36-37) and precedes a vision of the new Temple and priestly
order to be inaugurated in the age to come (Ezekiel 40-48). The Temple vision is dated to 573
B.C.E.; the preceding Gog prophecies are undated but presumably stem from this time.
The haftarah thus has a transitional position in Ezekiel's book—depicting a purgation of
Israel's enemies to occur before a repurification of the land. The great battle against Gog is only
mentioned here, though rabbinic tradition identified it with the wars envisioned in Zechariah
14—the prophecy read as the haftarah for the first day of Sukkot. The destruction of Gog came
to symbolize the apocalyptic wars in subsequent Jewish literature and imagination. 1
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 38:18. On that day A common prophetic formula used to introduce eschatological
oracles and repeatedly used by Ezekiel in the Gog prophecy (cf. Ezek. 38:10, 14, 19; 39:11).
291 HAFTARAH FOR INTERMEDIATE SABBATH OF PASSOVER
Gog In popular lore, Gog is associated with Magog ("Gog and Magog"). It is clear from
Ezek. 38:2 that the first name refers to a person (or persons) and the second to a geographical area
("Gog of the land of Magog"). Despite this, and the clear inclusion of Gog among the Aegean
peoples mentioned in Gen. 10:2, 4 no precise identification has emerged. The most probable
suggestion is to associate Gog with Gyges, a Lydian king mentioned (as Gugu) in the seventh
century B.C.E. annals ofKing Ashurbanipal of Assyria (Rassam Cylinder 2:95f., 111-15). 5
19-22. The military advent of an enemy horde, to the accompaniment of tumultuous
national upheavals, is a common stylistic figure of biblical prophecy (cf. Isa. 29:6; Joel 2:1-6, 10;
Nah. 1:2-6; Hab. 3:3-6). This literary convention is also emphasized in Mesopotamian liturgies
celebrating divine warriors. In the Bible, these portraits draw particularly upon imagery of seismic
events and sea-tossed tempests (cf. Habakkuk 3, a haftarah for Shavuot; and Psalm 18). They
dramatize the awesome, supernatural aura of God's manifestations (see also Exod. 19:18-19).
23. Thus will I manifest This topic of God's greatness and holiness (ve-hitgaddilti ve-
hitkaddishti) continues in Ezek. 39:7 in connection with God's holy name. Both features combine
and find expression in Jewish liturgy through the Kaddish prayer, the well-known exaltation of
God and His holy name recited at various intervals in the service (to mark liturgical units; and as
recitations by mourners, after certain prayers or rabbinic texts). It begins with the wordsyitgaddal
ve-yitkaddash shemei mbba\ "May His great name be exalted and sanctified."6 Rabbi Simeon bar
Yohai cited Ezek. 38:23 to prove that God is exalted and sanctified when He manifests His judg-
ment against the wicked (Leviticus Rabbah 24:1). 7
Ezekiel 39:2. and drive you on The Hebrew shishei'tikha is obscure. The sense of being
led or driven underlies the Septuagint and Vulgate. This stem is perhaps related to an Ethiopian
verb with the causative sense "bring in." 8 Alternatively, it has the sense of "incite" or "push
forward" (Genesis Rabbah 19:12). 9
7. let My holy name be profaned The spectre of gentile desecrations of God's name due
to Israelite suffering (and thus the appearance of divine absence or impotence; cf. R. Eliezer of
Beaugency),10 is a theme recurring in Ezekiel's prophecies (cf. Ezek. 20:9,14, 22; and 36:20-23).
There are older echoes (cf. Exod. 32:11-13). Correspondingly, manifestations of divine power
on behalf oflsrael will result in the sanctification of God (see Ezek. 39:27; also 20:41).
A related instance of Ezekiel's concern with God's holy name climaxes his eschatological
prophecies. The prophet says that the renewed Jerusalem will be named "The L O R D IS There"
(48:35). This is a sacral name, to be compared with contemporaneous renamings of Jerusalem
such as "I delight in her [heftzi-vah]" and "Sought Out [derushah]" in Isa. 62:4, 12.
8. this is that day thatl decreed Literally, "the day of which I prophesied \dibbarti\\
OJPS: "the day whereof I have spoken." This reference is a reprise of Ezek. 38:17. References to
enemies from "the remotest parts of the north" who, "mounted on horses," will advance "like a
cloud \ve-dlita . . . ke-dnan~\ covering the earth" (38:6, 15-16; cf. v. 9), suggest that the advent
of Gog was understood as the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecies. Jeremiah, too, spoke of an
"enemy from the remotest parts of the north" (Jer. 1:14-15; cf. 6:22 f.) who, mounted on horses,
"ascends like clouds \ka-dnanimyadlehY over the earth (Jer. 4:1s). 1 1
For the contents and structure of the Book of Kings and a consideration of its overall historio-
graphy and theology, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." See also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from this work
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
According to biblical law, the conclusion of the festival week of Sukkot was to have a special
celebration. "On the eighth [shemini] day you shall hold a solemn gathering ['atzeret]" (Num.
29:35; Lev. 23:36 calls the time a "sacred occasion," mikm' kodesh). After his dedication of the
Temple and celebration of Sukkot, Solomon apparently used this occasion to discharge the as-
sembled people; for "on the eighth day he let the people go [back] . . . to their homes" (1 Kings
8:66). According to ancient practice in the Land oflsrael, this verse was the opening line of the
haftarah; 1 today it marks the conclusion of the reading according to the Ashkenazic and Sephardic
rites.2 According to the Babylonian Talmud (B. Megillah 31a), the (Babylonian) practice was to
begin with 1 Kings 8:54, "When Solomon finished [<ke-khallot]". This was apparently due to the
(now obsolete) custom of reading Num. 7:lff! from the Torah, which begins, "On the day that
Moses finished [kallot] setting up the Tabernacle." The practice reflects a concern to highlight
a parallelism between the completion of the Tabernacle and the Temple. Present practice is to
read Deut. 14:22-16:17 from the first Torah scroll and then to read Num. 29:35-30:1 from a
second scroll in order to mark the occasion of Shemini Atzeret.
The haftarah selection begins after Solomon's great prayer, which he recites at the dedica-
tion of the Temple. In it, he calls upon God to attend to the needs of His worshipers (1 Kings
8:22-53). The prelude to that Temple Prayer is the haftarah for the second day of Sukkot. The
haftarah for Shemini Atzeret, 1 Kings 8:54-66, has three units.
While choice of the haftarah is conditioned by its reference to an "eighth day" after the onset of
Sukkot, its formal structure centers on the blessing (part 2) enclosed within a narrative prologue
and epilogue (parts 1 and 3). That blessing gives thanks to God for fulfilling His prophetic
promise and then requests divine providence in the future. These requests form a literary frame:
a (1 Kings 8:57-58) and c (v. 61) emphasize Israel's observance of the commandments (fo-
cusing on divine help and human responsibility), whereas the intermediate section b (w. 59-60)
stresses the desire for God's sustenance and the manifestation of His fame to all people. Notably,
Solomon asks God "to provide" for the mishpa-t (or "cause") of the people—"according to each
day's needs" (v. 60). 3 This petition recalls the concerns in the inaugural Temple Prayer, where
Solomon beseeched God to hear the requests of His people from heaven and attend to their
mishpat (1 Kings 8:39, 43, 45, 49).
The allusion to Shemini Atzeret in 1 Kings 8:66 is not without difficulty. The problem in-
volves the sequence of events. According to 1 King 8:2, "All the men oflsrael gathered before
Solomon at the Feast" of Sukkot to celebrate the completion of the Temple. Verse 65 certainly has
this same occasion in mind when it says that "Solomon and all Israel with him . . . observed the
Feast at that time." The confusion arises with the subsequent statement, "seven days and again
seven days, fourteen days in all" and its sequel, "on the eighth day [Solomon] let the people go"
(v. 66). If the first seven days comprised the festival week of Sukkot (and the second seven were
devoted to the period of Temple dedication), then the eighth day of Assembly is wot mentioned
(contra Lev. 23:36 and Num. 29:35); whereas if the second seven days mentioned were in fact
the festival week of Sukkot (after the seven-day period of Temple dedication), then the eighth
day was apparendy wot observed at all. How can this problem be resolved?
One possibility is that the historian knew only the law in Deut. 16:15, which makes no
mention whatever of a special day after the week of Sukkot.4 On this view, 1 Kings 8:66 simply
follows the practice known to it, and the dismissal of the people on the eighth day has nothing
to do with the sacred assembly stipulated by the priestly tradition. However, by the end of the
biblical period (and certainly for classical Judaism), this answer was no solution. It only deferred
the issue of how 1 Kings 8:66 could be understood in the larger context of biblical law. The Book
of Chronicles shows that this problem was no abstract matter; for after citing his source from
1 Kings 8:65a, the chronicler goes on to insert his understanding of "seven days and again seven
days" in verse 65 b and the meaning of the subsequent "eighth day" (v. 66). He says: "And on the
eighth day they held a solemn gathering; they observed the dedication of the altar seven days,
and the Feast seven days. On the twenty-third day of the seventh month [Solomon] dismissed
the people to their homes . . ." (2 Chron. 7:9-10). It would thus appear that the postexilic
chronicler resolved the problem with the assumption that the seventh day of Temple dedication
COMMENTS
1 Kings 8:54. all this prayer and supplication Both the demonstrative pronoun ("this")
and the terms ("prayer," "supplication") refer to the Temple Prayer of 1 Kings 8:22-53. The terms
appear as a pair (see w. 28, 30, 33, 38, 45, 49) and singly (see w. 29, 35, 42, 44, 47, 52). The
prayer gesture in verse 54 complements that in verse 22, where Solomon "stood" before the altar
at the beginning ofhis prayer dedication. At some point, he changed his physical posture.
58-61. walk in all His ways This formula appears at the beginning and end of the bles-
sing and is part of standard Deuteronomic language (cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 3:14). This terminology
dominates all other parts of the prayer, including the expressions of wholehearted obedience
(v. 61; cf. Deut. 4:29) and the theology of a God who is near to the worshiper (v. 59; cf. Deut.
4:7) and incomparable (v. 60; cf. Deut. 4:35, 39). There is thus a strong similarity of theme and
language between Deut. 4:1-40 and 1 Kings 8:56-61, and the topic of theological incomparability
is also found in postexilic prophecy (cf. Isa. 45:5, 6, 18, 21, 22). A common liturgical tradition
may be supposed. 6 The hope that God will not "abandon or forsake" His worshiper (v. 57) also
has liturgical overtones (cf. Ps. 27:9).
The blessing in 1 Kings 8:56-61 is absent in the Chroniclers version (2 Chron. 7:1-10).
Instead, a fire descends to ignite the altar (2 Chron. 7:1), much as described in the dedication
of the altar in the Tabernacle (Lev. 9:24). And just as the latter event was accompanied by a
manifestation of God's kavod (Presence [Lev. 9:23]), so does this heavenly reality appear in
the Chronicles account. The latter version is also replete with popular and priestly liturgies
(2 Chron. 7:3, 6). Solomon's divine invocation in 2 Chron. 6:41-42 is another liturgical unit,
with a striking variant in Ps. 132:8-10. The hymnody of the Second Temple has apparently af-
fected the chronicler's depiction of Solomon's celebrations in the first one.
the king consecrated the center ofthe court That is, Solomon sanctified the floor of
the court with the sanctity of the altar dedicated there (see R. ludah in B. Zevahim 59a, followed
by Rashi). The center of the court thus refers to the floor of the court of the priests. This special
sanctification was because the "bronze altar" was "too small to hold" all the abundant offerings
made at that time (Kimhi; Gersonides). According to tradition, Solomon established there an
altar of stones affixed to the floor (B. Zevahim 59a-60a; and cf. R. loseph Kara and Kimhi).
65.from Eebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt That is, from one end of the country to
the other [Transl.].
theFeast Thatis, ofBooths. Compare Lev. 23:34 [Transl.].
the eighth day That is, of the second seven-day feast; compare 2 Chron. 7:8-10
[Transl.].
ASHKENAZIM JOSHUAL:L-18
SEPHARDIM JOSHUA 1:1-9
For a discussion of the Book of Joshua and an overall consideration of its historiography, theology,
and literary form, see "The Book of Joshua" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other passages from the Book of Joshua recited as haftarah
selections, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah is taken from the beginning of the Book of Joshua. It is thus the first book
after the Torah and the death ofMoses, to which it is explicitly "linked" (Josh 1:1; so Rashi and
HAFTARAH FOR SIMHAT TORAH 296
Abravanel.1 To mark the transition, Joshua is called the successor of Moses and is commanded
to bring the people into their ancestral homeland. Indeed, the land that Moses only saw from
a distance (Deut. 34:1), but could "not cross there" (v. 4), loshua is told to enter ("cross . . .
into") and walk its length and breadth (losh. 1:2-3). As a sign of spiritual continuity, the Torah,
"charged" by Moses "as the heritage of the congregation of lacob" (Deut. 33:4), is enjoined
upon loshua for observance and study (losh. l:7-8a). "Only" thus will the people "prosper"
(v. 8b). Sephardim read only this portion of the chapter (w. 1-9); Ashkenazim also recite loshua's
orders and exhortations to the tribes (w. 10-18). The haftarah is thus composed of two parts:
God's command and loshua's obedient execution.
COMMENTS
Joshua, 1 :l.After the death The untranslated transition is effected by the Hebrew form
w-jy^z; literally, "And it was." The conjunction -pa- links the phrase to the Book of Deuteronomy
(Rashi). Kimhi regards this form in more purely stylistic terms (i. e., as a transitional phrase).
I.Moses is dead According to rabbinic tradition, this occurred on the seventh of Adar.
See B. Kiddushin 38a.
3. Every spot on whichyourfoot treads This is a technical phrase for taking possession.
See the discussion in Content and Meaning.
4. Tour territory shall extend The ensuing description outlines the ideal boundaries of
the land—limited only by geographical barriers on all sides (river, sea, desert-wilderness, moun-
HAFTARAH FOR SIMHAT TORAH 298
tains). It follows Deut. 11:24, which it explicitly quotes (losh. 1:3). The notable difference is the
addition here of the summarizing designation "the whole Hittite country" (v. 4). This is identical
to the term "Hatti land" used in Assyrian sources to indicate the Syro-Palestine region.13 Other
delineations ofideal boundaries include Gen. 15:18-21, Exod. 23:31, and Deut. 1:7-8.
8. recite it day and night The ideal of perpetual study and recitation is enjoined upon
loshua; inPs. 1:2, this is an ideal for all who delight in the Torah and would be righteous. The
Book ofDeuteronomy reflects both goals. In Deut. 17:18-20, a leader (the king) is exhorted
to study the Torah at all times that he be humble and pious; while Deut. 6:5-9 articulates the
communal ideal of discussing or teaching the Torah at all times—when seated at home, walking
on the way, lying down, and getting up. It marks a religious ideal of perpetual focus upon God
through a constant preoccupation with His Teachings. This is the spiritual end that lies beyond
the utilitarian motivation of God's word to loshua. 14
9. Bestrong This phrase alludes to Deut. 31:23 (Rashi).
10.Joshua thereupongave orders The time is unspecified. Rashi suggested that this was
after the period of mourning for Moses. Gersonides suggests that this was after loshua had sent
out the spies.
12-15. This alludes to Numbers 32, but the language has been influenced by Deutero-
nomicphraseology (cf. losh. 1:13 andDeut. 12:9).
For a discussion of the Book of Joshua and an overall consideration of its historiography, theology,
and literary form, see "The Book of Joshua" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the
Haftarot Cycle." For a discussion of other passages from the Book of Joshua recited as haftarah
selections, see the listing in "Index ofBiblical Passages."
The haftarah recounts the first events of the Israelites in the homeland—including a Passover
ceremony at Gilgal (Josh. 5:10). This celebration is the center point of a series of episodes in
Joshua that parallel the original Exodus and repeat it under new circumstances. For example,
the crossing of the Jordan is portrayed as a miracle similar to the crossing of the Sea of Reeds
in Moses' day. Like that event, "the L O R D . . . dried up the waters of the Jordan for the sake of
the Israelites until they crossed over" (Josh. 5:l;cf. 3:13-17,4:17-18). On the other side, the
ritual celebration at Gilgal marks the entrance into the Land in the same way that the Passover
meal in Egypt marks the Exodus itself. And finally, the appearance of an angel to Joshua prior
to his conquest of Canaan (Josh. 5:13-15) recalls the theophany to Moses at the burning bush
(Exod. 3:1-5). On both occasions, the hero was bidden to remove his shoes because the ground
is holy. The repetition joins the moment of God's promise (to deliver the nation from bondage
into the Promised Land, Exod. 3:8) to the onset of its fulfillment. Joshua has become the new
Moses for the nation.
These similarities put the reader in mind of the recurrence of redemption—and mark off
the continuities between the Exodus from Egypt and the ongoing occasions of liberation that
compose sacred history.
The haftarah is pervaded by rituals, sacred space, and the hint of holy war. Each marks a stage in
the transformation of the people and the Land. At the beginning, the young males of the wander-
ing are circumcised—and with this the sojourn in Egypt (and its "disgrace" [losh. 5:9]) is ended.
Following this ritual, the people eat of the passover offering and the new grain of the land—and
with this the food of the desert (manna) is ended and the produce of the land consumed. And
finally, there is a revelation from the heavenly "captain of the LORD'S host" (5:14-15), who tells
loshua to remove his shoes from his feet—and with this, a chain of events beginning with Moses
in the wilderness, who was similarity instructed by an angel at the beginning of the redemption,
is concluded. The nation now stands at the brink of its inheritance.
The various sections of the haftarah (the national circumcision at Gilgal, the passover offer-
ing and the new grain, and the revelation of the Lord's angel to loshua) deserve further com-
ment—because they take us beyond the external acts of ritual to the inner processes of cultural
and historical memory. 1 Indeed, the narrative and its episodes show the power of history to
represent the great paradigms of the past. 2 In this case, the text portrays the entrance into the
Land as a new exodus and loshua as the new Moses. 3 A close look at four aspects of the descrip-
tion of events show how this is achieved.
1. Immediately antecedent to our haftarah, the Book of loshua reports that the people
cross the lordan River—whose waters were "cut off" from their normal flow and stood "in
a single heap" (losh. 3 : 1 5 - 1 6 ; cf. v. 1 3 ) . This miraculous depiction recalls the crossing of the
Sea ofReeds in Moses' day (Exod. 1 5 : 8 ) . Andjust in case the point is not sufficiently obvious,
the narrator states the matter explicitly (losh. 4 : 2 1 - 2 4 ) . If, he says, future generations inquire
concerning the cairn of stones that the tribes took out of the lordan, they should say that they
recall how "the L O R D your God dried up the waters of the lordan before you until you crossed,
just as the L O R D your God did to the Sea of Reeds . . ." (v. 2 3 ) . In its pedagogical form, this
teaching echoes Deut. 6 : 2 0 - 2 5 , where precisely the same question-and-answer format is used
to emphasize the Exodus itself.
2. In order to underscore further the typology between the Exodus and conquest, the nar-
rator adds that "[t]he people came up from the lordan on the tenth day of the first month"
(losh. 4 : 1 9 ) . This dating recalls the final events of the sojourn in Egypt—when each family was
commanded to take a lamb "on the tenth of [the first] month" (Exod. 12:3) and sacrifice it as "a
passover offering to the LORD" (v. 1 1 ) on "the fourteenth day" of the month "at twilight" (v. 6 ) .
For a whole week thereafter, only "unleavened bread" was to be eaten (w. 1 8 - 1 9 ) . Similarly in
the days of loshua, we learn that "the Israelites offered the passover sacrifice on the fourteenth
day of the [first] month, toward evening" (losh. 5:10)—and on the morrow ate "unleavened
bread and parched grain" from "the produce of the country" (v. I I ) . 4 The procedure conforms
with the commandment found in the Torah:
When you enter the land that I am giving to you and you reap its harvest, you shall bring
the first sheaf of your harvest to the priest [and he shall elevate it as an offering on the day
after the passover offering]. 5 . . . Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of
your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears . . . . (Lev. 23:10-14)
3. The paschal ceremony at Gilgal (losh. 5:10-11) also explains the conjunction of this ce-
lebration with the immediately preceding account of the circumcision of the Israelite males (5:
2-9). A legal factor underlies the narrative—and that is the rule that only the circumcised could
participate in the paschal offering (see Exod. 12:43-50, especially v. 48b). By performing the
rite of circumcision prior to the passover sacrifice, loshua is presented as a righteous observer of
the law—a faithful follower of the statutes ofMoses.
4. A final scene further links loshua to Moses, and the events of the Exodus to the conquest.
It occurs near lericho, after the passover ceremony. On that occasion, loshua is confronted by a
"man" with a "drawn sword in hand" (losh. 5 : 1 3 ) . This figure identifies himself as the "captain
of the LORD'S hosts" (v. 1 4 ) . loshua perceives in this individual an angelic messenger and pro-
C O M M E N T S
Joshua 5:2.Makeflint knives and proceed -with a second circumcision The use of flint knives
(harbot tzurim) continues ancient practice (cf. Exod. 4:25). As with the ancient altars, this ritual
object remained rough-hewn. Since antiquity, some have regarded the reference to be to a sharp
knife (Targum, followed by Rashi); others suggest, "sharp like flint" (R. Joseph ibn Kaspi).
The need for a second circumcision is indicated in w. 4-7, where we are told that the ritual
was done on the children of those who had come out of Egypt—born after the Exodus, during
the desert wandering (v. 5). The reason for delaying the ritual is not given. One rabbinic tradi-
tion suggests that the postponement was due to the hardships of the trek and the absence of a
north wind (B. Yevamot 71b-72a; cf. Rashi). 7 Others have offered that the new command was
to ensure the practice ofperidh (whereby the corona of the membrum is uncovered by splitting
the membrane that covers it and drawing it downward), since this aspect of the ritual "was not
given to Abraham" (B. Yevamot 71b). This opinion is contested by Abravanel and earlier by
Kimhi, who reports a midrashic tradition that Abraham did in fact perform this procedure. 8
All commentators agree that "all [the male] Israelites were circumcised at the Exodus," as
Scripture states (Metzudat David). 9 According to rabbinic tradition, the circumcision was required
for entrance to the Land, "since this land was promised to the patriarchs on condition that their
descendants would observe the rite of circumcision" (Genesis Rabbah 46:9). 10
3. Gibeath-haaraloth That is, "the Hill ofForeskins" [Transl.].
4. this is the -reason Hebrew ve-zeh ha-davar. For this understanding, see Kimhi.
9. Today I have rolled awayfromyou This is part of a divine speech that explains the
name of the shrine of Gilgal by a popular etymology (galloti, "I have rolled away"). 11 The remark
that with the circumcision God has ended the "disgrace" ofEgypt is puzzling. If the issue con-
cerns the circumcision itself, tradition reports that the males were already circumcised in Egypt
and that those now circumcised were born after the Exodus (cf. Josh. 5:5). Moreover, extensive
evidence (paintings, texts, mummified bodies) show that the ancient Egyptians also performed
this operation, although in a different way than the Israelites.12 NJPS therefore suggests the pos-
sibility that the disgrace is "of the Egyptian bondage" (see next note). The episode of Joshua's
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D T H E FESTIVAL
The haftarah portrays the first passover offering in the Land—after which ("on the day after")
the people ate of the "unleavened" produce of the land (Josh. 5:10-11). From this perspective,
the animal offering marks a recollection and renewal of the Exodus, and the unleavened grain
signals the end of the desert trek (and the divine manna). Hence the eating of the new grain
on the morrow of the passover offering is something of a rite of passage, the entrance into the
Land promised the ancestors.
The renewal of this grain ritual annually (through eating the w^tzot, or unleavened wafers) does
not simply celebrate new agricultural beginnings. It is also a celebration of the earth as a physical and
spiritual homeland—physical, because it marks the natural necessity of eating (and the domestica-
tion of the earth through bodily labor); and spiritual, because it stresses the relationship between
labor and the re-creation of the earth as a habitat for human freedom and flourishing.
ASHKENAZIM 2KINGS23:l-9,21-25
SEPHARDIM 2 KINGS 23:1-9, 21-25
For an introduction to the Book of Kings and a consideration of its contents, historiography, and
theology, see "The Book of Kings" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot
The haftarah develops sequentially. It begins (1) with a national assembly, a public reading of
the "covenant scroll" (2 Kings 23:2), and a communal renewal of the covenant; it then turns
(2) to the cultic purification program, both of pagan artifacts and priests from lerusalem, and
of Israelite shrines in the countryside (with the eviction of their personnel to lerusalem); and it
concludes (3) with a national Passover and a summary of all the great events.
Each of the parts of the tripartite sequence is initiated by the king, but involves priestly and
popular participation; indeed, both the people and king are said to accept God's covenant with
all their heart and soul (1 and 3). This language is carefully chosen and is meant to evoke the
great proclamation of the Shema' in Deut. 6:4-9—where all Israelites are called upon to love
God with all their heart and soul and might (v. 5). The implication is that now, in the days of
losiah, the people have fully committed themselves to the covenant—much as Moses had ex-
horted their ancestors to do before the entrance into the Land. It is notable that the account of
the disestablishment and destruction of local altars also follows the language found in the Book
ofDeuteronomy (see Deut. 12:1-3). The only discrepancy is that the local Israelite priests are
hereby barred from cultic activities in lerusalem (2 Kings 23:9), whereas in Deut. 18:6-8 this is
permitted. The difference may be an ad hoc amendment to the Law, meant to deal with the specific
circumstances of defilement of this time and place—not more. One can observe that 2 Kings 23:
9 is not only a notice tacked on at the end (with the term }akh, "however"), but (together with
v. 8) interrupts the acts of defilement of prohibited worship (w. 4-7, 10-20). Nevertheless, the
elements are intertwined: both the purification and centralization of worship are two main parts
of the great Deuteronomic reform (see Deut. 12:1-3 + 4-7).
The covenant ceremony at the outset of the haftarah and the Passover celebration at the
end deserve special comment. Not only is the celebration a public recitation of the divine Teach-
ing—reminiscent of Moses' proclamation of Deuteronomy itself before his death, and of Ezra's
reading of "the scroll of the teaching of Moses" upon the return from Babylonian exile (Nehe-
miah 8:1)—it is also the only event after Sinai in which all the people publicly and collectively
undergo a commitment to the divine covenant. There was no other act of covenant ratification
with the entire nation since before the settlement into the Land. The great Passover celebration
mentioned in 2 Kings 23:21-22 states the same: there had been nothing like it during the whole
period of the judges and kings—that is, there was no Passover event like this since most ancient
times. The first post-Exodus Passover event of such collective importance occurred in the time
ofloshua, immediately upon entrance into the Land (losh. 5:10-11); this event is recited as the
haftarah for the first day of Passover.
C O M M E N T S
2 Kings 23:2. And he read to them the entire text ofthe covenant scroll This public
reading before all the nation echoes the private reading to losiah of the found scroll (2 Kings
22:10-11). In the first case, Shaphan the scribe reads the scroll to the king; in this instance, the
monarch himself performs the public recitation. The personal repentance of the king thus results
in a national renewal of the covenant. The scroll is called here sefer ha-berit, "the covenant scroll"
(cf. Exod. 24:7) —and not only "the scroll of the Teaching" (2 Kings 22:8, l l ) . 5 The precise
contents are not specified. On this basis, the allusion to punishment for idolatry (23:11), and
the acts of purification and centralization of worship that ensue (23:4-9), many modern com-
mentators assume that the king heard the curses of the Book of Deuteronomy and responded
by fulfilling its ritual prescriptions.
3.And all the people entered into the covenant NIPS "entered into" follows the Targum.
The Hebrew verbal form va-ya'a-mod is doubly difficult—both because the idiom is otherwise
unknown as an expression for entering the covenant and because the verb follows the earlier
4.Ashemh For this goddess, compare 1 Kings 18:19; ordinarily dshemh is rendered
"sacredpost" (e. g., 2 Kings 17:16) [Transl.].
6. he beat it to dust The specific verbs used to mark Josiah's destruction of the idols
("burned" and "beat to dust") may intentionally allude to the very same acts performed by Moses
when he destroyed the Golden Calf (Exod. 32:20). Josiah would thus function as a new Moses, a
role fully consonant with his depiction as one wholeheartedly devoted to the Teaching ofMoses
(2 Kings 23:25). The historian clearly had this parallel in mind, as we can see from his praise of
Josiah as a king the likes of which had not arisen before—"nor did any like him arise after him"
(v. 25). Hearing this, all readers would recall their first great leader, of whom Scripture says,
"Never again did there arise in Israel a prophet like Moses—whom the L O R D singled out, face
toface" (Deut. 34:10).
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D T H E FESTIVAL
The custom of reciting a haftarah from 2 Kings 23 is stated in the Babylonian Talmud. Supple-
menting an earlier teaching that "on [the first of] Passover . . . we conclude [the Torah reading]
with [the account of] the Passover at Gilgal," the Gemara adds: "but nowadays when there are two
days [celebrated at the beginning], [the account of] the Passover at Gilgal [is recited on] the first
day, and [the account of] the Passover ofjosiah on the morrow" (B. Megillah 31a). The notice
does not specify which verses are recited or that (as is the present custom) "skipping" is done.
The structure of the haftarah—covenant renewal, purification from idolatry, and Passover
celebration—contemporizes the ongoing meaning of the festival. The first Passover, in Egypt, is
but the beginning stage of a national and individual process. At that time, the people left Egypt
and its idolatries in order to serve God in the wilderness. The opening lines of the Decalogue
also signal this fact. God has delivered the people from Egypt; therefore they should serve Him
alone and no idol or divine representation (Exod. 20:1-4). This covenantal commitment is con-
firmed in the days ofjosiah—and provides an example for future generations. The people read
the book of the Teaching and demonstrate their covenantal loyalty by destroying all idolatry from
the Temple. Only then do they celebrate the Passsover in full splendor. The process presented
is thus one of inner commitment to the truths of the tradition, and a separation from impure
and false practices.
Through this haftarah, the Rabbis teach that the Passover liberation must be achieved time and
again—and that its three central pillars are devotion to the covenant, wholehearted commitment
to God, and a purgation from one's religious life of every sign of false or impure service.
HAFTARAH FORSEVENTHDAY OF PASSOVER 306
Haftarah for Intermediate Sabbath ofPassover nOD ^ TOlftn ^in nn^
ASHKENAZIM EZEKIEL37:1-14
SEPHARDIM EZEKIEL 37:1-14
For a discussion of Ezekiel's life and times and a consideration of his message and theology, see
"The Book of Ezekiel" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See
also the comments to the several haftarah readings taken from his prophecies (listed in "Index
ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is a special reading designated by ancient rabbinic tradition for the Intermediate
Sabbath ofPassover (B. Megillah 31a). Its thematic focus is the regeneration and repopulation
of the people's life and spirit from the doom of exile. A vision of dry bones and their resurrec-
tion is the central trope of the prophet's depiction of national rebirth. Ezekiel himself went to
Babylon with the first contingent o f j u d e a n exiles in 597 B.C.E. (cf. 2 Kings 24:8-16 and Ezek.
1:1-2). The present prophecy is probably after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E., when there
was a large-scale deportation to the east.
C O N T E N T A N D M E A N I N G
The prophecy of the dry bones in Ezek. 37:1-14 is part of a divine vision (plus execution: w.
1 - 6 + 7-10) followed by its explanation (w. 11-14). In the first case, the opening spectacle
of bones strewn across the valley floor is punctuated by God's query of Ezekiel:"0 mortal, can
these bones live again?" and the prophet's response that "only You know" (v. 3). Such a query
about a phenomenon recalls the prophetic pattern in which God asks the prophet what he sees
and, after the latter notes the ostensible feature, the matter is explained by God along with a
prophecy bearing on Israel's future (Amos 7:7-8; 8:1-2; Jer. 1:11-15; Zech. 4:2-5:4). 1 In the
present case, the question is separated from the explanation by an execution of the divine order
to prophesy to the bones about their revival and by a depiction of the event itself. Oddly, the
depiction and the interpretation are slightly divergent—since the bones are initially described
as being on the ground, whereas the revived bones are subsequently said to arise from newly
opened graves (cf. w. 2 and 12).
The spectacle and its effect are accentuated by repeated uses of the particle hineh, with the
sense of "behold" or"lo"—thus conveying a dramatic sense of immediacy. The term occurs twice
in connection with the opening vision of dry bones in the valley ("He led me all around them;
and beholdl there were very many of them . . . and lo! they were very dry" [Ezek. 37:2]). It recurs
again in connection with the prophet's address to the bones themselves ("Beholdl I will cause
breath to enter . . ." [v. 5]), and then twice more in connection with the execution (once in con-
nection with the noise preceding the coming together of the bones [v. 7], and again in connection
with the formation of the sinews [v. 8]). The particle also marks God's promise about opening
the graves for the resurrection of the people ("Beholdl I am going to open your graves" [v. 12]).
C O M M E N T S
Ezekiel 37:1. The hand ofthe LORD came upon me A characteristic expression for over-
whelming divine inspiration in the Book of Ezekiel (Ezek. 1 : 3 , 3 : 1 4 , 8 : 1 , 4 0 : 1 ) , but also found
elsewhere (Isa. 8 : 1 1 ) . Other old traditions refer to the "descent" of the ecstatic spirit upon a
person (cf. ludg. 1 4 : 6 , 1 9 ; 1 5 : 1 4 ; 1 Sam. 1 0 : 6 , 1 0 ) . Ezekiel similarly announces that "the spirit
of the L O R D fell upon me" (Ezek. 1 1 : 5 ) .
The "spirit [mah] o f t h e L O R D " (Ezek. 1 1 : 5 ) or "of God" ( 1 1 : 2 4 ) in the Book ofEzekiel is
the "spirit of prophecy" (see the Targum to Ezek. 3 7 : 1 ) , as distinguished from "wind" (ruah)
generally. The term ruah is repeated variously in our text with different senses, thus functioning
as a constituent feature ofEzekiel's rhetoric. 8
and set me down Hebrew va-yniheni (also in Ezek. 40:2) is a hif'l form of the verb nuah,
to be distinguished in form and sense from the variant hif'l form ve-hinnahti (found in 37:14;
also 22:20), which means "to set" in the sense of "to leave" or "establish." The repetition of the
308 HAFTARAH FOR INTERMEDIATE SABBATH OF PASSOVER
verb, first with the prophet alighting in the valley and later with the promised resettlement of
the nation in the homeland, thus frames the unit and gives it stylistic closure.
3. only Tou know R. Eliezer of Beaugency supplements: "for You created them." 9 He
explains: "the artisan is proficient to determine if a broken pot might be repaired or not." 10
4. and say to them The word "them" is a preposition with a third-person masculine
plural pronoun, although the reference is to "the bones," a feminine plural. Similar grammatical
irregularities pervade this (cf. w. 2, 4-8) and other chapters (especially Ezekiel l). 1 1
5-10. The oracle addressed to the bones follows this sequence: sinews, flesh, and skin.
This completed, an oracle is recited for breath "from the four winds" to enter the corpses "that
they may live again" (v. 9). The supernatural rejuvenation process reverses the natural process
of physical decay, as Rashi and R. David Kimhi have noted. This rebirth imagery is but one
of the images the prophet uses to prophesy national renewal. In an earlier oracle, the nation is
promised "a new heart and a new spirit" for the time of their resettlement in the Land (Ezek.
36:26-28).
10.1 prophesied Hebrew hinnabbe'ti. Grammatically, the verb is vocalized as a hitpa'el
with the elision of the tav (so Kimhi; i. e., from a presumed original hitnabbe'ti);12 it parallels
the pi'el form nibbe'ti in verse 7. 13 Both verbs are part of symmetrical compliance formulas. A
similar example of such an elision occurs in Ezek. 5:13, ve-hinnehamti (and when I vent My fury)
occurring instead of ve-hitnehamti.14
11. we are doomed For this expression and links to liturgies, see above. In particular,
nigzarnu (we are doomed) is comparable to the expression nigzarti (I am lost [Lam. 3:54]) and
its biform nigrazti (I am thrust out [Ps. 31:23]). Compare also nigmshti (I was driven away
[Jon. 2:5]).
14.1 the LORD have spoken and have acted As a result of the national restoration, the na-
tion will "know" that the Lord fulfills prophecies, that is, that He is a trustworthy and efficacious
God. The formula "I the L O R D have spoken and have acted," often used with the recognition
terminology "that you will know," is a distinctive feature of the prophet Ezekiel (cf. Ezek. 17:
24, 22:13-16, 24:14, 36:36).
C O N N E C T I O N S BETWEEN T H E H A F T A R A H A N D T H E FESTIVAL
The reason for reading Ezekiel's vision of resurrection on Passover is somewhat obscure. 15 The
earliest rabbinic source simply refers to the reading as "the dry bones" (B. Megillah 31a), with
no explanation. Rashi's later comment adds the terse remark that "they came out ofEgypt before
the [set] time"—an apparent allusion to the identity of the resurrected bones as belonging to
Israelites from the Exodus period. His point is fleshed out by an Aramaic Targum preserved in
the aforementioned Mahzor Vitry (from the school of Rashi) and elsewhere.16 In these traditions
we are told that the bones belonged to those Ephraimites who, according to an old rabbinic
observation, miscalculated the time of bondage and left Egypt before the proper time (B. San-
hedrin 92b, cf. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 48). These individuals were killed by the Philistines on
their way out of Egypt 17 and are now revived as a sign of the future resurrection. The fact that
these Ephraimites were in Egypt before the Exodus is presumably the missing link connecting
this haftarah with the festival of Passover. But such a marginal tradition hardly accounts for the
theme of resurrection, which is the central and powerful theme of the haftarah.
Another consideration for the reading of Ezekiel 37:1-14 on the festival may be suggested—
one that focuses on the resurrection motif itself, rather than on the identification of the people
involved. This consideration starts from the striking Jewish tradition that the patriarch Isaac was
bound upon the altar at the Passover season (see Jubilees 18:18-19; Targum Neofiti on Exod.
C O N N E C T I O N S B E T W E E N T H E H A F T A R A H A N D T H E FESTIVAL
The song ofMoses (Exodus 15:1-18, recited in the Torah service) and David's song of thanks-
giving (recited as the haftarah) are both dramatic accounts of God's saving providence in history.
The recitation of the Song at the Sea on the seventh day of Passover is based on the tradition
that the miracle of the waters occurred on that day. Choice of 2 Sam. 22:1-51 as the prophetic
reading is already noted in the Talmud (B. Megillah 31a). Rashi explains this selection as due to
the fact that David's song complements that ofMoses. In fact, he proposes specific links between
the two passages by suggesting that two of the divine actions in David's song—"Smoke went
up from His nostrils" and "He let loose bolts, and scattered them" (2 Sam. 22:9, 15)—actually
refer to events at the Reed Sea described by Moses (cf. Exod. 15:8-10).
Rashi's opinion is rooted in midrashic tradition, which notes these links among several others
(Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Be-shallah 2 [on Exod. 14:13]; Yalkut Shimoni, 2 Samuel 22,160).
According to R. Yohanan, the phrase "He [God] reached down from on high . . . [and] drew me
out of the mighty waters" (2 Sam. 22:17) refers to God's rescue of the weak and weary Israelites
from the Sea (Yalkut Shimoni, 161; cf. R. loseph Kara, ad loc.). Moreover, the identification of
the "perverse" ones in 2 Sam. 22:27 with Pharaoh and the Egyptians is already made by Targum
lonathan, where the paraphrase refers to God's rescue of the Israelites from those who plotted
against them. Such identifications show that drawing connections between the haftarah and the
Exodus was an established element of old synagogue tradition.
It is not necessary to share these historicizing ascriptions in order to appreciate the religious
mentality that inspires them. For rabbinic tradition, God's ongoing acts of salvation were embed-
ded in an expanding liturgy of praise. The songs ofMoses and David represent two paradigmatic
moments in the sacred history oflsrael. From this perspective, it was only natural to expect that
succeeding layers of that history would embed references to earlier acts of divine redemption.
This layering of memory is an essential feature of lewish cultural consciousness. Recitation of
these events in the synagogue transfers them to new generations, deepening the shared past and
its central images.
(Some also recite this passage for Yom ha-'Atzma'ut, Israel Independence Day)
For a discussion of the prophecies in Isaiah 1-39 and a consideration of their historical setting
and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39" in "Overview of Biblical
Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks introducing the other haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The prophecies in this haftarah compose a series of promises concerning national redemption
and conclude the first part of the Book oflsaiah (chapters 1-12). 1 Repeatedly the prophet refers
to a "day" to come, a day of victory and fulfillment that will inaugurate a new order of existence
(Isa. 10:32; 11:10, 11; 12:1). It will be a time of victory over oppression, of the renewal of
Davidic kingship, of an era of peace and harmony that will transfigure the natural enmity, and
of the ingathering of the nation from its far-flung dispersion. Beneficiaries of divine grace, the
people oflsrael shall "joyfully . . . draw water from the fountains of triumph" (12:3) and praise
God, who shall dwell in their midst in Zion.
All these hopes are recited on the eighth day of Passover, concluding the festival of freedom
with hopes of a great redemption to come. The prophet Isaiah spoke in Jerusalem sometime in
the last third of the eighth century B.C.E., with an eye on the oppressive Assyrian power to the
northeast. However, his message has not been restricted to that time and place, but has rather
been a transcendent teaching of hope ever since. Indeed, the series of prophecies in this haftarah
include some of the most powerful and influential Utopian visions in Scripture.
The series of prophecies in this haftarah moves from an end to foreign oppression to Utopian
visions of national justice and ingathering. At each point, a dimension of God's universal do-
minion is depicted or projected. The very first prophecy begins with an oracle of divine victory
over an Assyrian monarch; in subsequent ones, the universal acknowledgment of the just rule of
the new Davidic king is anticipated, and God's power to redeem Israel from their dispersion is
portrayed. All told, the messianic era is marked by justice, kingship, and national restoration—as
well as the celebration of God's acts of deliverance.
At the center of the haftarah is a vision of social and natural transformation. The new ruler
will be inspired by the spirit of the Lord and will reveal this influence in all his ways—through
wisdom and counsel, through devotion and reverence, and through justice and equity. The king's
transfiguration of the interpersonal sphere by his inspired bearing and actions is complemented
by an even more radical transformation of the natural world. An era of Edenic bliss is projected
for all creatures, resulting in the virtual end of enmity and rapacity between them. The prophet
characterizes this result as a universalization of "devotion" to (or knowledge of, de'ah [Isa. 11:
9]) the Lord. Such a quality will change people and animals alike—such that "nothing evil or
vile shall be done" through the land ( 1 1 : 9 ) . The remarkable implication of Isaiah's vision is that
there are no essential instincts like anger or aggression; rather, there is only a greater or a lesser
devotion to God and its concomitant effects.
The interconnectedness of the various oracles is effected by verbal repetitions and wordplays.
Sometimes the result is to juxtapose or counterpoint certain themes; on other occasions the ef-
fect indicates continuity and development. Such literary features give a rhetorical density to the
speeches and highlight their themes in unexpected ways.
Particularly instructive for a holistic reading of the haftarah is a comparison of the language
in Isa. 1 0 : 3 2 , which opens the cycle with reference to the invader who "shall . . . wave his hand"
(yenofef yado) against ludah, and 1 1 : 1 5 , where the prophet subsequently announces that God
will "raise His hand" (ve-henifyado) over the Euphrates when He begins to restore Israel from
their diaspora. In this sequence of prophecies, a certain counterpoint is evident: the initial figure
of waving conveys the power or contempt of the enemy, whereas the second one underscores the
sovereignty of God over the nations and the natural world. The transition is thus from oppres-
sion to a new Exodus—in both instances by a wave of the hand. An allusion to the redemptive
arm of God in Egypt and at the Sea cannot be missed; and indeed, the prophet says as much
when he begins the oracle of ingathering with the words "In that day, my Lord will apply His
hand \yado\ again to redeeming the other part of His people from Assyria—as also from Egypt,
Pathros, Nubia, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the coastlands" ( 1 1 : 1 1 ) .
A juxtaposition of a different sort is effected by the symbolic use of natural images. At the
beginning of the haftarah, the destruction of the oppressor is expressed through the figure of God
"hew[ing] off the tree-crowns {pu'mh] with an ax" (Isa. 1 0 : 3 3 ) . As if in response to it, the ensu-
ing oracle announces the regeneration of Davidic kingship through the statement that "a shoot
shall grow \yiphreh] out of the stump of lesse" ( 1 1 : 1 ) . The counterpoint between the images of
hewn branches and a shoot from a tree stump distinguishes the opening oracle from the one that
follows. Through these images a contrast of leadership is dramatized: an oppressive leader passes,
while an inspired one emerges to transform society. As noted, this difference is marked by two
words {pu'rah/yiphreh) that share the consonants p/r/h. The same cluster of sounds recurs in the
ensuing vision of creaturely harmony, which speaks of "the cow \paralo\ and the bear" grazing
together ( 1 1 : 7 ) . For the attentive reader, such phonemic repetitions provide a rhetorical texture
to the opening sequence of oracles—giving a tonal dimension to the thematic content. 3
A more complex phonological cluster integrates elements of the Utopian prophecies, where
the patterns of \,alef\/r and'['ayin\/r predominate. Thus the announcement about the new ruler
says that he will be inspired by "a spirit o f . . . reverence for [yir'at] the LORD" (Isa. 1 1 : 2 ) and
goes on to add that "He shall not judge by what his eyes behold [mar^h]" (v. 3). Because ofhis
HAFTARAH FORSEVENTHDAY OF PASSOVER 312
just leadership, there will be a radical transformation oflife on earth. Harmony and peace shall
reign and with them the absence of fear and distrust. All creaturely interactions will change—as
symbolized by a vision that "the cow and the bear shall graze [tir'enahY together, and "an in-
fant [shall] pass his hand over an adder's den [me'umtY (w. 7-8). Similarly, social life will be
radically reformed: "nothing evil [yare'u] or vile shall be done" on God's sacred mount, "for the
land [}aretz] shall be filled with devotion to the L O R D " (V. 9). Once again, tonal harmonies give
density to the prophetic theme.
A concordance of sound also marks the emphasis on the "spirit" (ruah ) that shall alight upon
the new Davidic king (Isa. 11:2). After that inspiration is announced (11:2), the theme word
ruah is repeated three more times in order to specify the dimensions of that inspired leadership
(including "a spirit" of wisdom [ruah hokhmah], valor, and devotion; [v. 2]). And concluding
this sequence is the remark that the king "shall sense [va-hariho]n the truth or be inspired "by his
reverence for the L O R D " (V. 3 ) , and "slay the wicked by the breath [ruah] ofhis lips" (v. 4 ) . The
new ruler will thus receive a divine spirit, but he will not be a seer or warrior; rather he will be
an ideal leader, pious and thoughtful in mind and heart. This ideal echoes the quality mentioned
in Deuteronomy about Joshua, who replaced Moses as the national leader and was filled with
the "spirit of wisdom [ruah hokhmahY (Deut. 3 4 : 9 ) .
A recurrence of the theme word mah, now as "wind," links the prophecies on leadership with
the vision of a new Exodus from the dispersion (Isa. 11:15-16). Such a hope is a fitting climax
for the concluding day of Passover.
COMMENTS
Isaiah 10:32. This same day atNob The fall of the Assyrian aggressor precedes the ac-
count of the messianic ruler (11:1-10) and national ingathering (11:11-16). The place name
Nob is punned on in the reference to the monarches contemptuous and boastful "wave" (yinofef)
of "his hand" (Luzzatto). 4 This negative act is reversed by God's hand gesture (ve-henif) over
the Euphrates (11:15), in His act of deliverance. In B. Sanhedrin 94b, the place-name Nob is
actually called nof.
According to some commentators, Isa. 10:32-34 provides the needed syntactic prologue
to l l : l f f . ("but a shoot"); compare Ibn Ezra and S. D. Luzzatto. Abravanel, however, suggests
that 10:34 is the antecedent to 11:1; but Luzzatto rejects this, since 10:33 is not a conclusion
to the previous oracle.
33. tree-crowns Hebrewpu'mh. This is an unusual spelling; many manuscripts readpumh.
See Ezek. 17:6 and 31:5-6 for the related formpo^rot. The verbal stemp- } -r may be a biform of
p-w-r. In this case, the spelling evokes a punning suggestion of the enemy's pride (pe'er). The high
branches here contrast with the humble stump of the scion of Jesse in the next image. Isaiah elsewhere
emphasizes the theme of cutting down national (Isa. 2:9-18) and foreign pride (14:5-15).
Isaiah 11:1. stump ofjesse This messianic prophecy has been linked "to a descendant of
the family of King Hezekiah" (Kimhi); R. Moses ibn Chiquatilla suggests that this prophecy "hints
at Hezekiah" himself, "since it is joined to the (prophecy found in the preceding) chapter" (Ibn
Ezra) —which announces that the Assyrian monarch attacking Jerusalem would be destroyed.
That king was Sennacherib, and his Judean contemporary was Hezekiah (cf. Isaiah 36-38).
2-5. The messianic ruler will be divinely inspired. The general reference to "the spirit
[ruah] of the L O R D " in verse 2a is explicated in verse 2b as the spirit of wisdom, insight, coun-
sel, valor, devotion and reverence. Verse 3a ("he shall sense," va-hariho]) has traditionally been
interpreted as an inner perception (Kimhi; Ibn Ezra), as against the outer senses of sight and of
hearing noted in the sequel. Alternatively, the verb may be construed as a denominative, meaning
"(God shall) inspire" him (R. Isaiah di Trani; R. Eliezer ofBeaugency).
The royal virtues allude to the epithets of counsel and valor in Isa 9:5 and to the rule of
"justice" and "equity" (9:6). Here the rule is by "justice" and "equity" (11:4) and "justice" and
"faithfulness" (11:5)—all ancient virtues of the just king. These ideals are repeated in royal hymns
313 HAFTARAH FOR EIGHTH DAY OF PASSOVER
(Ps. 72:1-2, 4, 7, 12-13) and other prophecies of the Davidic shoot (Jer. 23:5). Proverbs 20:8
pithily captures this virtue of justice.
9. My sacred mount That is, the Holy Land; compare Exod. 15:17 and Ps. 78:54
[Transl.].
Nothin^g evM i m a g e °f righteousness that is guided by royal example (w. 2-5). The
king will be inspired by knowledge of God (v. 2) and will generate this among the people. An
image ofEdenic transformation intervenes (w. 6-8). A parallel image occurs in Isa. 65:22-25.
There too there is a reference to an era when "nothing evil" will occur on God's holy mount;
but the latter version omits any reference to "knowledge" or "devotion to the L O R D " (cf. 1 1 : 9 ) .
In leremiah's expectation of the new age, God will provide knowledge to the people as a whole.
A new, spiritual Sinai will occur: the Torah will be written on the tablets of all hearts, and then
all will "know" God (ler. 3 1 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) .
11. otherpart That is, the part outside the Holy Land [Transl.].
12. hold up a signal Hebrew ve-nasa} nes is alliterative. This and other images of this
prophecy have been combined by rabbinic tradition in the tenth blessing of the daily Amidah
prayer. It calls upon God to gather the exiles from their dispersion; its invocation of a triumphal
blast of the shofar to inaugurate this messianic moment draws on Isa. 27:13.
15. The LORD will dry up The prophet uses mythic imagery to convey the new Exodus.
The theme of God smiting the waters is a primordial event of origins, found in biblical (cf. Ps.
74:13-15) and ancientNear Eastern sources. The splitting ofwaters into seven streams is known
from Canaanite and earlier sources.5 The transfer of this battle to the Exodus event is also found
in Isa. 51:9-11.
The battle motif forms the basis for the more epic account in Exodus 14-15. Thus the depic-
tion in Exod. 14:21 ofMoses extending his arm over the sea and of God making the sea a dry
ground (ha-mvah) by cleaving (va-yibba-ke'u) the waters (yam) is a transformed and historicized
version of the god Marduk's battle against the sea dragon Tiamat in the Babylonian myth of
creation (Enumah elish ). In that account, the hero defeats the sea by means of a staff and blasts of
wind; he also splits the monster asunder, after the battle. The biblical and Near Eastern images
give reason to suggest that the words heherim (lit., "doomed") and ba'ya-m in Isa. 11:15 should
best be read as heheriv (dry up) and ba-ka'ya-m (split [the] sea), respectively.6 The proposed verb
baka' was presumably corrupted orthographically; indeed just this verb occurs in Torah's account
of the splitting of the sea (Exod. 14:21). Ibn Ezra assumes the otherwise unattested root ba'a-m,
with the contextual sense of "strength"; Luzzatto proposes the same meaning with the reading
be-'otzem (this sense also underlies the Syriac version).
16. otherpart That is, the part outside the Holy Land [Transl.].
Isaiah 12:2-3. Behold the God.. .Joyfully shall you draw water Verses 2 - 3 have entered
liturgical practice as an expression of messianic hope in the Havdalah service at the conclusion of
the Sabbath. The use of imagery of water and wells to convey spiritual sources is found variously
in Scripture (cf. ler. 2:13 and Ps. 36:9-10). The image became a widespread postbiblical motif. 7
The many links between Isa. 12:2-6 and other hymnic celebrations in Scripture (cf. Pss. 36:6;
105:1; Exod. 15:1) suggest that Isaiah draws from established liturgical language.
COMMENTS
Ezekiel 1:1. In the thirtieth year This date is obscure and has long puzzled interpreters,
even though it is correlated in verse 2 with the fifth year of the exile of King Jehoiachin (593
317 HAFTARAH FOR FIRST DAY OF PASSOVER
B.C.E.). The Targum, presumably based on ancient tradition, suggested that the thirty-year refer-
ence counts from the finding of the Torah in the reign of Josiah (621 B.C.E.). Rashi accepted this
view and, on the basis of the Seder 'Olam chronicle in his possession, added that the thirty-year
reference was to a Jubilee year calculation.8
2-3. the word ofthe LORD came... to Ezekiel Though verse 1 is reported in the first
person ("I was"; "I saw"), verses 2 - 3 are third-person reports. Noting this "interruption of divine
inspiration" (Rashi) between verses 1 and 4, R. Eliezer of Beaugency suggested that "the scribe
who wrote [Ezekiel's] prophecies added [these verses] to explain what [Ezekiel] stated obscurely"
inverse 1. Historicalsuperscriptions are alsofoundinlsa. 1:1; Jer. 1:1-3; andAmos 1:1.
3. Chaldeans Hebrew kasdim. The Chaldeans were an Aramean group that penetrated
southern Babylonia around the beginning of the first millenium B.C.E. At first subjugated to As-
syria, they gained independence and took over the Babylonian kingship with a dynasty founded by
Nabopolassar (in 626 B.C.E.), father ofNebuchadnezzar. The group is affiliated with Chesed (kesed),
mentioned in Gen. 22:22. The English name "Chaldean" derives from Greek chalda-ioi (Akkadian
kaldu )-, it is the result of a slight consonantal change from the original Semitic kashdu.
3. hand of the LORD An idiom referring to an overwhelming prophetic experience. See
Isa. 8:11 and Jer. 15:17. In Ezekiel, it is especially used prior to visions; compare Ezek. 8:1
and 40:1.
4-5. The image of a divine advent in a chariot, upon clouds, with flashing fire and a
nimbus of light, is most commonly used in the Hebrew Bible in connection with God's ap-
pearance as a warrior. Compare Ps. 18:8-15 and Hab. 3:3-15, though it is also used to depict
God's advent as a righteous judge (see Ps. 97:1-9). The local source of this imagery is Canaanite
portrayals of the storm god Ba'al as a rider of clouds (cf. Ps. 68:5, 34).
4. of amber Hebrew hashmal. A bright substance, possibly related to the Akkadian gem
elmeshw,9 alternatively, it is cognate with Akkadian eshmaru, "polished bronze." The Latin Vulgate
renders electmm ("amber"; cf. similarly, Greek elektron). Later, a rabbinic tradition regarded the
hashmal as a mysterious quality, able to emit fire and kill (B. Hagigah 13a).
6. each hadfourfaces The face of a man in front, a lion at the right side, an ox at the
left side, and an eagle behind (v. 10).
7. single rigid Iqg A "straight" or unjointed leg. NIPS has "the legs of each were [fused]";
but it is not clear whether this is the case or whether each creature had but one leg.
On the basis of this phrase, talmudic Sages ruled that one should stand with both feet fixed
together during theAmidah (B. Berakhot 10b), thus resembling the angels on high (I. Berakhot
1:1).
like the luster Hebrew 'ein:, literally, "color." See Lev. 13:5. The panoply of colors in
the vision (also w. 4, 22, 26, 28) dazzled the prophet and inspired the rich color symbolism of
lewish mysticism, both in actual meditation techniques and in esoteric speculations.
11. each had two touching Of the four wings, two were raised and touching those of
the creatures on each side, and two covered each body (cf. w. 22-23). It is difficult to deter-
mine whether Temple iconography inspired Ezekiel. In Solomon's Temple two large cherubs
overarched the ark with wing tips touching and fully extended (1 Kings 6:23-27); here, only
one pair of wings is described. On the other hand, Isaiah envisaged seraphim with three pairs
of wings (Isa. 6:2). The imagery of four wings fits into the symbolism of four that dominates
the chapter. In fact, an old expression refers to the four corners of the earth as "the four wings
[,kanfot] of the earth" (Isa. 11:12).
The four creatures thus symbolize earthly and cosmic wholeness: unity amid multiplicity, like
the four countenances themselves. The many faces also indicate divine omnipresence, and the
many eyes on the wheeled discs (v. 18) suggest divine omniscience and providence.
HAFTARAH FOR FIRST DAY OF SHAVUOT 318
An old midrash gives a sense of the attributes conveyed by the four creatures: "Four kinds
of proud beings were created in the world: the proudest of all—man; of birds—the eagle; of
domesticated animals—the ox; of wild animals—the lion; and all of them are stationed beneath
the chariot o f t h e Holy One . . ." (Exodus Rabbah 23:13). 10
16. two wheels cutting through each other Hebrew ha-'ofan be-tokh ha-'ofan.
Alternatively,"a wheel within a wheel" (OJPS). It is not clear if the portrayal is of two wheels
intersecting crosswise (somehow fixed into each other, at right angles), 11 or of concentric wheels,
one inside the other. 12
24. the sound of mighty waters Hebrew kol mayim mbim. This may refer to the cosmic
waters; compare Ps. 93:4. 13
28. the Presence ofthe LORD Literally, "the Glory [kavod] of the LORD." The divine kavod
in the Bible is frequently associated with theophanies, particularly in cultic settings (see Exod.
24:17; 40:34-35; 1 Kings 8:11). It was experienced as a substantive presence, even occasionally
anthropomorphic in appearance (Exod. 33:18-23). This latter, at any rate, is "the appearance of
the semblance of the kavod" that Ezekiel saw.
In later Jewish thought, the relationship of the kavod to God was variously discussed. Some
speculations, particularly mystical ones, regarded the kavod as an extension of the Godhead itself.
For philosophers like Saadiah Gaon, the divine kavod was a "created form" made by God in order
"that the light would give his prophet the assurance of the authenticity of what has been revealed
to him . . . and is called Shekhinah by the Sages."14 Indeed, according to Yehudah Halevi, it can
assume any form God wishes to show the prophet. 15 Maimonides held a similar view, calling
the Shekhinah a "created light." 16 As such, the divine "Glory" was deemed essentially distinct
from God.
Ezekiel 3:12. Blessed is the Presence ofthe LORD, in His place Hebrew Barukh kevod
YHWH mi-mekomo. In context, this phrase refers to something the prophet heard. The Targum
already suggested that Ezekiel heard beings "praising and saying" the ensuing doxology. Hymnic
recitations by divine beings were a common motif, already in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Isa. 6:3, and
the threefold Kedushah).17 It is also a feature found in the Qumran scrolls and in ancient Jewish
visionaryliterature (the so-called merkavah [throne] and heikhalot [palace] hymns).
As regards the place of "His place," some answers are actually suggested in the midrash-like
sequences of the different Kedushah prayers. In Seder Rabbah di-Bere'shit, the creatures beneath
the divine throne respond to the angel's doxology of "Holy, holy, holy" with "Blessed is the Glory
[NJPS: Presence] of the LORD, from [NJPS: in] His place!" A midrash follows based on the lan-
guage used. "Why do they [the creatures] not say 'in His place' [bi-mekomo instead of mi-mekomo]?
Because the Shekhinah is in every place. In the future, when the Shekhinah returns to its place in
the Holy ofHolies, they will say 'Blessed is the Glory of the LORD, from His place!"18
But the whole matter is puzzling and may derive from an earlier and different formulation.
It will be noted that Ezekiel "heard" this "great roaring" (Ezek. 3:12) in connection with the
wings and the wheels (v. 13). Since such audible sounds are connected in Ezek. 1:24 with the
ascension of the divine throne, it may be wondered whether this is also the original meaning of
the phrase. On this view, it has been suggested (by F. Hitzig and S . D . Luzzatto) that the word
"blessed" (barukh) is the result of a minor scribal error that arose in transcribing the Hebrew text
from an earlier archaic orthography to the present square "Assyrian script" (called ketav \ashuri).
Thus, the similar letters kh and w were presumably confused, resulting in the transcription barukh
instead of berum, "when it [the divine transport] ascended." 19 Notably, this reading is exactly
like the idiom used for the ascension of the chariot in Ezek. 10:15-19. Restored to its assumed
original, Ezek. 3:12 would thus read: "Then the spirit carried me away, and behind me I heard
a roaring sound, when the Presence [kavod] of the LORD ascended from its place." Between the
scribal slip and the lip of praise, a great religious motif was formed.
The angelic doxology "Blessed is the Presence of the LORD, in His place" has become a
fixed element of the Kedushah (Sanctification) prayer, in which the human worshipers sanctify
ASHKENAZIM HABAKICUK3:1-19
SEPHARDIM HABAKKUK 2:20-3:19
For Habakkuk's prophetic message and a discussion ofhis theology, see "The Book of Habakkuk"
in "Overview ofBiblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle."
At the center of the haftarah is the revelation of God's heavenly Glory to the prophet (Hab.
3:3-15). As in Ezekiel 1 (recited on the first day of Shavuot), that Glory appears on a chariot
and is of numinous and terrifying aspect. This prophetic vision is encased within an opening
petition of divine mercy and a concluding personal response (Hab. 3:1-2, 16-19). This entire
unit is recited by Ashkenazim. Sephardim begin with the final verse of chapter 2 (Hab. 2:20),
which refers to God in His heavenly Temple. This verse thus serves as a prologue to the divine
advent depicted in the vision.
The Book of Habakkuk has no superscription or internal dating. The reference to the destruc-
tive advance of "the Chaldeans, that fierce, impetuous nation" at the beginning of the collection
(Hab. 1:6) gives reason to suppose that the prophet was a contemporary of the emerging neo-
Babylonian empire (from 626 B.C.E.), if not a witness to its famous victory over the Egyptians
at Carchemish (605 B.C.E.). Nebuchadnezzer's subsequent invasions ofludah are not mentioned
by Habakkuk, but an ominous event is on the horizon. In the haftarah, the prophet prays for
God to respond—and is graced by a vision of the divine advent and victory.
COMMENTS
Habakkuk 2:20. The LORD is in His holyAbode The Lord's heavenly dwelling is the place
to which prayers ascend (Ps. 18:7; cf 1 Kings 8:30) and from which divine rescue proceeds (Ps.
18:8-10; cf. Ps. 68:34-36). God's majesty induces numinous awe: hasmi-panav, "be silent before
Him." A similar expression occurs in Zeph. 1:7, also in anticipation of God's day ofbattle.
Habakkuk 3:1. Habakkuk The Hebrew word is unknown; in Akkadian it means "fra-
grant herb" (habbaququ/hambaququ). According to medieval legend (though possibly earlier),
this prophet was the Shunammite woman's son announced by Elisha with the words: "At this
season next year, you will be embracing [hoveket:, root h-b-k] a son" (2 Kings 4:16). Presumably
the annunciation formula (hoveket) was interpreted as a folk etymology of "Habakkuk" (see
Zohar 1:76; 2:44a).
3-15. Beginning with God's advent from Teman, the depiction is replete with well-
known mythic imagery: the divine appearance is one of splendor and light, which strike abject
awe in all beholders; the approach is like that of a storm god, enthroned upon a chariot of clouds
and encircled by a fearsome horde; and the weapons include a (rain-) bow, bolts of lightning,
and mace-heads that shatter the foe. Comparable biblical descriptions include Pss. 18:7-18; 74:
13-15; and 77:12-19. In these cases, the progression is from the heavenly to the earthly realm,
and God fights His earthly battles with great mythic intensity.7
A long-standing rabbinic tradition read Habakkuk 3 otherwise, transforming its mythological
sequences into specific episodes in the sacred history oflsrael. The reference to Teman and Paran
ASHKENAZIM JEREMIAH8:13-9:23
SEPHARDIM JEREMIAH 8:13-9:23
For Jeremiah's life and times and a discussion of his thought and literary style, see "The Book
of Jeremiah" in "Overview of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the
introductory comments to the several haftarah readings taken from the prophecies of Jeremiah
(listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah is saturated with doom and destruction—first announced and then depicted in
a series of powerful images (ler. 8:13-17; 9:7-9, 20-21). The impending horror evokes tears
and laments from the prophet himself and from women specifically invited to bewail the event
(see 8:18, 21; and 9:16-21, respectively). In a climactic image, the prophet tells these women
that death itself "has climbed through our windows"—leaving corpses strewn everywhere, "with
none to pick them up" (9:20-21). A concluding coda counsels divine knowledge and proper
conduct (9:22-23). It is not said that such behavior can diminish or prevent the severity of doom.
Rather, with stark simplicity, this teaching provides a counterpoint to the perversion of morality
and divine service denounced earlier (9:1-5 and 11-15).
leremiah 8:13-9:23 is recited during the morning service on Tisha b'Av.1 The prophet's call
to the keeners to recite their laments for the people and the Land evoke the central genre and
ritual of this day—the public recitation of elegies over Zion and lerusalem.
COMMENTS
Jeremiah 8:13.1 will make an end ofthem Hebrew 'asof'asifem. This vocalization under-
stands the first verb }asof as an infinitive absolute of the verbal stem s-w-f "to end" or "destroy"
(see Rashi and Kimhi). The content of what is destroyed is spelled out in Jer. 8:14. 7 Alternatively,
one may read: "Their fruit harvest has been gathered in," following the Septuagint, a translation
that presupposes the Hebrew vocalization 'osef'asifam and thus construes the word 'osef as a noun
based on the verbal stem }-s-f, "to gather." (Compare Ps. 104:29; for 'e'esof, see Mic. 2:12). The
verb is echoed in Jer. 8:14 and 9:21 (see Content and Meaning). The verbal pattern 'asof'asef
with the sense "I will sweep everything away," also occurs in Zeph. 1:2-3. 8 As in Jer. 8:13, the
first verb functions as an intensifier of the second.
Whatever I havegiven them isgone Hebrew va-'etten la-hem ya'avrum. This phrase is
difficult. Traditional commentators have perceived here a reference to the transgression of the
Torah ofMoses. Moderns have emended the phrase, but there is no commendable solution. 9
14. Because we sinned against the LORD This clause evokes the confessional form hata'nu,
"We sinned." Citations of similar popular confessions recur in Jer. 3:25; 14:7, 20; 16:10 (cf.
Ps. 41:5; Lam. 5:16). The prophet's speech often appears based upon certain rhetorical forms.
Compare the themes, language, and style ofjer. 8:14-23 with 14:17-22.
17. Lo, I will send serpents This is God's response to the previous lament. 10 In this
prophecy, there will be no counter-charm for the poison. For "expert enchanter" (nevon lahash),
see Isa. 3:3.
18. When ingritflwould seek comfort The Hebrew, mavligiti'aleyyagon, is difficult. The
Septuagint translates "incurable," thus understanding mavligiti as a conflated misreading of two
words: mivligehot (cf. Hos. 5:13; Prov. 17:22). 11 The referent would thus be to the incurable
snake bite mentioned in verse 17. 12 Kimhi follows lonah ibn lanah in considering the word to
be a conflation of masculine and feminine forms of a verb meaning "to overpower" (cf. Ps. 39:
14). Thus: "I have been overwhelmed with sorrow." Ibn lanah himself adduces the participial
form in Ps. 123:1 (masculine) andHos. 10:11 (feminine) for comparison. 13 His translation and
paraphrase follow the Targum. The prepositional 'aley is to be understood as 'alay, "upon me."
19. Is not the LORD in Zion ? Many commentators have construed the first two questions
to be spoken by Israel, followed by God's response at the end ("Why then did they anger Me?"). 14
Such an approach interprets the opening questions as theologically challenging; hence the divine
reaction. But it is a feature of the triple rhetorical question to create a graded intensification, in
which the first two queries imply a negative response. For this reason, it all appears that all three
questions are spoken by God (Luzzatto). 15 The triple question is a rhetorical conceit often used
by leremiah (cf. ler. 2:14; 8:22).
Jeremiah 9:1-5. This passage is a good instance of the reuse of patriarchal themes in
prophecy. Here the lacob cycle is deftly alluded to by a play on the name lacob ("every brother
['ah] is a deceitful supplanter ['akovya'kov]" [v. 3]; [NIPS: "takes advantage"]). Other key words
in the oracle derive from that biblical narrative. Compare: "Your brother Yah~] came with guile
[;mirmah ] ....
329 HAFTARAH FOR TISHA B'AV AFTERNOON
Was he, then, named Jacob \yacakov] that he might supplant me [va-ya'keveni] these two
times?" (Gen. 27:35-36). The noun mirmah occurs in Jer. 9:5; the verbyehatellu (cheat) in Jer.
9:4 recalls Gen. 31:7. 16 The confusing phrases "You dwell \shivtekha\ in the midst of deceit. In
their deceit, they refuse to heed Me" (v. 5) can best be understood with the Septuagint. In it,
the consonants sh-v are construed as the verb shuv (repent) and linked to the verb nil}u in verse
4 (NJPS: "they wear themselves out"). The result is the phrase niPu shuv, "they refuse to repent
\shuv\' The remaining consonants t-kh were construed as the word tokh (treachery). The recon-
structed Hebrew text would thus be: tokh be-tokh, mirmah be-mirmah, "treachery in the midst of
treachery, deceit in the midst of deceit" (cf. Jer. 9:7). 1 7 The words tokh and mirmah constitute a
fixed pair in biblical Hebrew (cf. Ps. 10:7; 55:12). The resulting oracle against verbal mendacity
is framed by Jer. 9:2 and 6-8.
2. They bend their tongues like bows "Their arrows are the false and bitter words they
speak" (Kimhi). See also verse 7.
5. Tou dwell in the midst ofdeceit See Comment to 9:1-5.
7. Their tongue is a sharpened arrow "Sharpened," Hebrewshahut (keri). See R. Joseph
Kara and Kimhi. The ketiv, shohet, yields the sense of a "killing" arrow.
16. dirge-singers Professional female keeners. Compare Ezek. 32:16. These mourners
may have keened in counterpoint; see M. Mo'ed Katan 3:9.
let them come The expression is given twice: the first time with the verb u-tevo'enah,
the second with the variant form ve-tavo'nah. Compare Ezek. 16:55, for the variants tashovena/
teshuvenah, "shall return"—also with a verb whose second radical is a vav (Luzzatto). 18
23. For I theLoRD act -with kindness The haftarah ends with a summary of covenantal
virtues that counterpoints the moral and religious sins denounced earlier (9:1-5 and 11-15).
See the discussion in the Comment to Jer. 9:23in the haftarah for Tzav.
For a discussion of the prophecies and traditions in Isaiah 40-66 and a consideration of their his-
torical setting and theological concerns, see "The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40-66" in "Overview
of Biblical Books Excerpted in the Haftarot Cycle." See also the remarks on the other haftarah
readings taken from this collection (listed in "Index ofBiblical Passages").
The haftarah focuses on spiritual renewal and obedience to divine precepts, national restora-
tion in the homeland, and the ingathering of Israelites and foreigners to Zion. Two features are
notable. The first is the prophet's call for repentance—urging the people to turn from evil and
seek God (Isa. 55:6-7); and second is God's word—announcing the inclusion of foreigners and
eunuchs in the worship of the new Temple (Isa. 56:4-7). Both features are unique in this post-
exilic collection of prophecies, focused on national consolation and restoration to Zion. 1 The
universalist inclusion of foreigners in Israelite worship is part of an ongoing cultural controversy
about the nature of the restoration community and its religious practices (see below).
The setting and date of the prophecies are not given. The initial call to repentance refers to
a promise of deliverance not yet realized, in which the people are told that they "shall leave [the
Babylonian exile] in joy and be led home secure" (Isa. 55:12). Another indication of the future
restoration appears in the ensuing exhortation to the people to "observe what is r i g h t . . . ; for
soon My salvation shall come" (Isa. 56:1). These prophetic proclamations may reflect the conquest
of Babylon by Cyrus the Mede and his subsequent decree (in 538 B.C.E.) that made possible the
return of the ludeans to their homeland and the renewal of the ancestral religious practices.2
COMMENTS
Isaiah 55:6. Seek the LORD while He can befound The call is addressed to contemporaries
(Ibn Ezra). If the force of the preposition bet (in be-himma-tz'o and bi-hyoto karov) is temporal,
then the divine is to be beseeched now, 11 "while" He "can be found" or "is near." This would
imply a special opportunity, a favorable presence of the divine for seekers (Ibn Ezra). 12 However,
the preposition could also be functional and implore the seekers to turn to God "in order that"
He be present to them (Abravanel; and cf. R. loseph Kimhi, cited by R. David Kimhi). Choice
between these possibilities involves different theologies. The notion of seeking God and finding
Him has other reflexes; compare Deut. 4:29 and 1 Chron. 28:9; negatively, Hos. 5:6.
The passage indicates the nearness of God. This theological feature is elsewhere used to
stress the immanence of God—especially to sufferers (Ps. 34:19) or true seekers (Ps. 145:18).
The notion of a "near" God is presented in Deut. 4:7 as a distinctive feature of Israelite religion:
"For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand [kerovim] as is the LORD our
God, whenever we call upon Him?" (cf. ler. 23:23). On this basis, later rabbinic tradition used
wicked King Manasseh to assert that Isaiah's comment in Isa. 55:6 was blasphemous, since it
presumed that God was not always "near." The apparent contradiction was resolved by assert-
ing that Deut. 4:7 refers to the nation as a whole, while Isa. 55:6 indicates the situation for
individuals (B. Yevamot 49b). The issue clearly exercised the rabbinic mind, perhaps because
of the suggestion that God was in some way remote or inaccessible. Such notions occurred in
contemporary pagan philosophies.
1. The haftarah for the afternoon (Minhah) service Haftamhfor Tisha bAvAfternoon
is discussed in the next haftarah. It is identical with the
haftarah recited on public fast days (afternoon). A 1. The material beginning in Isaiah 55 has been
2. Menahem Bulah proposes that the people state attributed to Trito-Isaiah since the researches of
v. 19a (the first two questions) and that God responds Bernhard Duhm, Das BuchJesaja ubersetzt und erk-
in v. 19b. See his commentary, Sefer Yirmiyahu, Da'at lart (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914).
Mikra' (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1983), 117. However, his speculations were preceded by Abraham
See already Kimhi. A Kuenen, who attributed chaps. 50-51 and 54ff. to
3. Sometimes this has led commentators to hyper- a later stratum; see his Historisch-kritische Einleitung
subtleties, which are too subjective and speculative. in die Bucher desAlten Testaments, Her Teil: Diepro-
This is the case with William Holladay, Jeremiah phetischen Bucher (Leipzig: Reisland, 1892,128-44.
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1986), 1:287-89. < The translation is from the Dutch original that ap-
4. Medieval and modern commentators take 8: peared in 1886. A
14-16 as Jeremiah's words on behalf of Israel, as 2. See the discussion and references in the haftarah
their representative; cf. Kimhi and William McK- for Va-'ethannan. A
ancJeremiahl-XXV, ICC (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 3. The prophe's voice speaks of God in the third
1986), 190. < person; the divine voice speaks in the first person. The
5. The most extensive discussion of prophetic phrase "declares the L O R D " (ne'um YHWH) marks
pathos is in Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New the new divine speech; cf. SigmundMowinckel, "Die
York: Harper&Row, 1962), passim. A Komposition des deuterojesajanischen Buches" ZAW
6. Ed. Bernard Mandelbaum (New York: Jew- 49 (1931): 111 n. 2. For the sequence of a prophet's
ish Theological Seminary of America, 1960), 1: utterance followed by a divine one, see Hugo Gress-
252-53. < mann, "Die literarische Analyse Deuterojesajas,"
7. The world that is destroyed is the created order ZAW 34 (1914): 269-70. <
itself; cf. Michael De Roche, "Contra Creation, Cov- 4. See discussion of the polemic and the use of
enant and Conquest (Jer. VIII13)," FT 30 (1980): Numbers 18 in Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpre-
280-90. < tation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
8. On this passage, see Michael De Roche, 1985), 138-43. <
"Zephaniah i 2-3:The 'Sweeping' of Creation," VT 5. See my discussion, ibid., 114-21. Many of the
30 (1980): 104-09. < same technical terms are used in these passages. A
9. Typical of modern emendations is the prolix 6. See also the discussion in Moshe Weinfeld,
The prophetic literature constitutes the second of the three parts of the Hebrew Bible. The first
part is the Pentateuch, or Five Books ofMoses, known as the Torah; the second part is the pro-
phetic literature and is designated by the Hebrew term Nevi'im, or Prophets; and the final part
is a block of diverse texts known collectively as the Ketuvim, or Writings. The acronym for these
three parts (Torah, Nevi'im, and ketuvim) is the word TaNaKh.
In scope, however, Prophets covers more than one-third of the Bible. In fact, this unit includes
twenty-one of the total thirty-nine books of the canon, when each of the books are counted (or
seventeen of thirty-six, when the writings of 1 - 2 Samuel, 1 - 2 Kings, and 1-2 Chronicles are
considered as one book each). This literature thus composes fully one-half of the entire Bible
and covers about 750 years of biblical history—from the conquest and settlement in the Land of
Israel (beginning ca. 1175B .C.E.) to a century or so after the dedication of the Second Temple, in
the Persian period (ca. 425 B.C.E.). The first part of the prophetic corpus is known as the Former
Prophets and includes the historical Books ofjoshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings. The
second part is known as the Latter Prophets and is subdivided into the so-called Major and Mi-
nor Prophets (in terms of the quantity of the material preserved). The former includes Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; the latter includes all the others, in a collection of smaller writings known
as "The Twelve (Prophets)," or Trei 'Asar.
In a literature that spans such a vast period of time and that does so with such different gen-
res, one would expect that the nature, function, and representation of prophets and prophecy
would vary greatly—and this is in fact the case. As we shall see, the terms that designate the
prophetic figure are many, and these point to different types of experience and roles; moreover,
the modes of expression are also many, and these involve a variety of social spheres and person-
ality types. This said, it should be added that the Hebrew Bible presents all these individuals as
the legitimate heirs ofMoses—the first and greatest of prophets. A charter of proper prophecy
is presented in Deut. 18:9-22. According to this document, the foundation of the phenomenon
of prophecy in Israel thus coincides with the founding of the nation and the revelation of the
Torah. However, the Torah reports the existence of other prophetic types as well. We are told of
the prophetess Miriam, Moses' sister, who sings and dances after the crossing of the Sea (Exod.
15:20-21), and of the ecstatic seizure of seventy elders in the desert (as well as two outsiders,
Eldad and Medad), when the spirit of God rests upon them (Num. 11:25-29). According to
yet another tradition, even Abraham is called a prophet in a divine word to Abimelech, the king
of Gerar (Gen. 20:7).
In the collection of Former Prophets, a number of persons are mentioned who have various
oracular or ecstatic experiences and are attached to sacred shrines or to special groups. Such indi-
viduals might be called a "seer [ r o ^ ] " (1 Sam. 9:9), a "man of God" (1 Sam. 9:6; 1 Kings 13:1),
or a "prophet [navi,]n (2 Sam. 7:2); and they could answer a specific question by an individual or
even deliver a message (1 Sam. 9:6-21; 1 Kings 14:5; 2 Kings 22:13)—sometimes at a shrine
or during a festival, and sometimes also for hire (1 Sam. 9:7-8, 12-13; 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings
8:9). The location of the prophet could also be within the royal palace (2 Samuel 7).
In other cases, bands of prophets roam about the countryside. They sometimes fall into
ecstatic trances to the accompaniment of music and dance and even influence the state of those
who pass nearby (as happens to Saul in 1 Sam. 10:5-6, 10-11) and sometimes do miraculous
acts of feeding or healing (as in episodes connected with Elisha and Elijah). Groups of prophets
in the employ of kings could also be consulted in times of danger or war, in order to divine
God's will, although this did not mean that all members of these groups were "yes-men," and
381 OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL BOOKS EXCERPTED IN THE HAFTAROT CYCLE
this divergence among the prophets could result in interesting dynamics (1 Kings 22). Groups
of prophets of Baal are also mentioned in these historical sources, and in a famous incident Elijah
stems their influence when he successfully intercedes with God to bring an end to a long and deadly
drought (1 Kings 18). Very rarely do the prophets mentioned in this literature exceed such acts
of divination (speaking or acting for weal or woe, in response to a specific behest or occasion);
and even where prophets mentioned elsewhere appear here, mantic functions predominate (as
when Isaiah pronounces the death of the sick King Hezekiah, then heals him and provides divine
signs of God's favor [2 Kings 20:1-11]). But this notwithstanding, several examples exist of
rebuke against kings for their egregious crimes. Particularly notable are the bold confrontations
ofNathan versus David (2 Sam. 11:1-12:15) and Elijah versus Ahab (1 Kings 20).
The Latter Prophets presents a completely different phenomenon. There are, to be sure,
various continuities with prophetic types found in the Former Prophets: King Zedekiah con-
sults leremiah (ler. 21:1-2), and elders consult Ezekiel to divine God's will in exile (Ezek.
14:1; 20:1). Moreover, Isaiah is presented as a visionary (Isa. 1:1; 2:1-4); and the visions
and trances ofEzekiel dominate his prophetic experience (Ezekiel 1; 8-10; 40-48), and he
also behaves in bizarre ways (Ezek. 4:4-12). Visions also dominate the prophetic career of
Zechariah (Zechariah 1-8), and Isaiah was known to engage in strange behavior (Isa. 20:3).
But such occurrences hardly offset the abrupt appearance of a new prophetic type in the mid-
eighth century B.C.E. —perhaps in part a response to the emerging Assyrian empire, poised
dangerously on the horizon. From this time on, we find individuals who say that they are
compelled by God and "sent" by Him to the people, for any of numerous reasons. It might be
to announce His words of doom or warning, to interpret disasters to come as divine punish-
ment for many sins (immorality most especially), or to condemn foreign nations for assorted
crimes and interpret their attacks against Israel and ludah as the rod of God's punishment. It
could also be to offer the nation hope in the present if they repent of their sins (though this is
not always a possibility, or one long extended) and a future consolation after the divine dooms
befall the nation, the Land, and the Temple.
Amos, the first of these great men of mission, utters words of divine rebuke and dramatically
declares his difference from the earlier and other breed of prophet when he vigorously rejects
the aspersion that he speaks for hire in a shrine. To the contrary, he says, "I am not a prophet,
and I am not a prophet's disciple. I am a cattle breeder and a tender of sycamore trees. But the
L O R D took me away from following the flock, and the L O R D said to me, 'Go prophesy to My
people Israel. ' And so, hear the word of the L O R D " (Amos 7:14-16). The call to prophesy thus
marks an involuntary break in the life of this individual, and he speaks to the nation in words
that are not his own. Indeed, the commission to hear and proclaim the word (davar) of God
to the people is the singular mark of this person— who is a conduit of divine concern. But not
only that. Interspersed among the prophecies of doom that forecast a dark day of the Lord, the
prophet Amos also tries to intercede with God on behalf of the people ("Oh, Lord GOD, refrain!
How will lacob survive? He is so small" [Amos 7:5]) and sometimes succeeds. A century and a
half later, leremiah also appears in this double role: at once a spokesman for God to the people,
and a spokesman for the people to their God.
Amos's self-presentation aside, the classical prophets were hardly rough or untutored individu-
als. Even Amos betrays himself through his complex speeches, artful rhetoric, and knowledge of
national history. Careful study of the words of the prophets shows that these are much more than
brief or blunt cries of woe and warning. Rather, they show all the signs of crafted speech—with
rhythmic patterns, nuanced emphases, and fixed patterns of emphasis and argumentation. It may
be that in certain instances the cries of the prophets were reworked or reformulated by later dis-
ciples, who collected and arranged them in thematic clusters or in sequences based on common
words. But this editorial process would hardly account for the whole phenomenon. It would
rather seem that these persons had access to (or were variously trained in) traditional rhetoric
and stylistic forms and that this content took on new and renewed modes of expression under
the influence of divine inspiration in specific circumstances. Indeed, one is as much impressed
by the commonalities among the prophets as by the differences between them.
Part 1. The History of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:1-8:3) This unit covers the period from the events
preceding the birth of Samuel to his old age, when he appoints his two sons as judges in Beer-
sheba. This time span thus continues the period of the Judges and ends just prior to the people's
request for a king (1 Sam. 8:4). Dominating this period are battles against the Philistines and
the capture of the Ark of God (1 Samuel 4). Strange events break out in the Philistine cities
of Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron as the Ark is moved from city to city (1 Samuel 5). Eventually, it
is returned to Israelite territory, but only after an indemnity is paid. In the course of the Ark's
transfer, some citizens of Beth-shemesh look into the Ark, and they too are struck down. In the
end the Ark is brought to Kiriath-jearim for safekeeping (1 Sam. 6:1-7:1). There it remains
until David brings it up to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). Further battles result in the eventual Israelite
reconquest of towns that the Philistines have taken from them. The report closes with a sum-
mary of Samuel's career as a circuit judge (1 Sam. 7:15-17) and the appointment ofhis sons
as judges, who, however, subvert their office (1 Sam. 8:1-3). This brief statement precedes the
request of"all the elders" for a king.
Part 3. Saul and David (1 Samuel 16:1-2 Samuel 1:27) This unit traces the rise of David
through the ranks and the court to become the acknowledged king of all Israel. In the process,
David endures the jealousy of Saul and various threats to his life. These difficulties and his unstable
situation do not end until Saul dies in battle against the Philistines.
The ascension ofDavid begins with his anointment by Samuel "in the presence ofhis broth-
ers" (1 Sam. 16:12-13). The narrator then reports that "the spirit of the L O R D gripped David
from that day on" and that "the spirit of the L O R D had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit
from the L O R D began to terrify him" (1 Sam. 16:13-14). This contrast presages the conflicts
to come: the heroism ofDavid in battle and the dark anger of Saul toward him. In a touch of
irony, the young David is brought to the court of Saul because of his skill on the lyre—for the
courtiers seek one who might make music and thus banish Saul's "evil spirit" (1 Sam. 16:16).
David passes the audition, and Saul makes him one ofhis arms-bearers. And "[wjhenever the
[evil] spirit of God came upon Saul, David would take the lyre and play it; Saul would find relief
and feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him" (1 Sam. 16:23).
David's first taste of glory comes during a battle with the Philistines, when he defeats the giant
Goliath with a few smooth stones from his sling (1 Samuel 17). The event has all the markings
of ritual combat: the giant curses David by his gods, while David proclaims that he will "come
against you in the name of the L O R D of Hosts, the God of the ranks of Israel, whom you have
defied" (1 Sam. 17:45) and that, by his victory, "[a]ll the earth shall know that there is a God in
Israel. And this whole assembly shall know that the LORD can give victory without sword or spear.
For the battle is the LORD'S, and He will deliver you into our hands" (1 Sam. 17:46-47).
The victory leads to an intimate bond between David and Saul's son lonathan, one that is to last
a lifetime. And it also leads Saul to impress the youth into his service; but with each victory, David's
fame grows, until the people praise him above their king: "Saul has slain his thousands; David his
tens of thousands" (1 Sam. 18:7). This attitude vexes King Saul, who in a rush of the evil spirit tries
to kill David with his spear. Saul also seeks other ways to kill David—through appointing him head
of the troops (1 Sam. 18:17-30) and through plots laid with lonathan and his courtiers (1 Sam.
19:1). But Saul is betrayed by his son and by his daughter Michal on various occasions, and David
flees for his life (1 Samuel 19-21). There follows an extensive series of episodes depicting David's
flight from Saul. David becomes a freebooter and a mercenary among the Philistines (1 Samuel
22-29). This alliance never brings David face-to-face with Saul in combat, since the soldiers of the
Philistine king of Gath reject David's presence, and he returns to his own lands and wins a great
victory against the Amalekites (1 Samuel 30). In subsequent battles against the Philistines, lonathan
is slain, and Saul prefers death at the hand ofhis retainer (1 Samuel 31). Upon learning of the death
of the king and his beloved companion, David chants a dirge of surpassing beauty: "Your glory, O
Israel, / Lies slain on your heights; / How have the mighty fallen!" (2 Sam. 1:19) . . . .
Part 5. The Sin ofDavid and Dynastic Strife (2 Samuel 11:1-20:22) The turning point in Dav-
id's rise to glory is the episode with Bathsheba. It occurs in the course of Israelite wars against
Ammon. David, remaining at home in the palace, casts his eyes on this woman. He conspires to
have her husband slain on the front, but the act meets with divine disfavor and the child born of
the liaison dies (2 Samuel 11-12). The whole situation is presented in masterly detail, filled with
suggestive gaps and alternating perspectives. It is a masterpiece of narrative art. The birth of a
new son, named Solomon, consoles the grieving parents. But this good news is offset by a series
of disasters in the royal household. A deep corruption begins to undermine the family.
The first disaster is David's son Amnon's rape ofhis half sister Tamar (2 Sam. 13:1-22). This
disturbs her full brother Absalom, and after much brooding and plotting, he conspires to kill
Amnon at a sheepshearing festival (2 Sam. 13:23-29). Absalom flees for his life; but despite the
murder, David grieves his son Absalom's absence greatly (2 Sam. 13:37-39). After three years,
David's courtiers persuade him to permit Absalom to return to Jerusalem. But it is another two
years before he is brought before the king and granted amnesty (2 Samuel 14). Still, all is not
over and done with. Soon Absalom proclaims himself king and foments a rebellion (2 Sam. 15:
1-12). Many ofhis supporters are former loyalists of Saul. So great is the mounting loyalty to
Absalom that David is constrained to flee Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:13-17). In an ironic replay of
394 OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL BOOKS EXCERPTED IN THE HAFTAROT CYCLE
the old scenario, David flees the court and hides in the countryside. The episode is told with
stark pathos: "The whole countryside wept aloud as the troops marched by" (2 Sam. 15:23).
David "went up the slope of the [Mount of] Olives, weeping as he went; his head was covered
and he walked barefoot. And all the people who were with him covered their heads and wept as
t h e y w e n t u p " (2 Sam. 15:30).
In stark contrast to these meager remains of respect and loyalty to David, the narrator
juxtaposes the curses of Shimei son of Gera, a Saulide loyalist (2 Sam. 16:5-14). This scene
epitomizes the public disgrace to which David has fallen and his own psychological inability to
strike decisively against the supporters ofhis son. David's only act of self-preservation at this point
is to induce his trusted counselor, Hushai the Archite, to go to lerusalem and join Absalom's
court as a spy (2 Sam. 15:32-37). Hushai does so and eventually is able to subvert Ahithophel's
advice to Absalom (2 Sam. 16:15-17:23). A complex series of intrigues follows, and eventually
David's troops are mustered to reassert his authority. Even so, David is obsessed with the safety
ofhis rebellious son, giving orders to his commanders to "[d]eal gently with my boy Absalom,
for my sake" (2 Sam. 18:5). Consequently, during the bloody battle, when Absalom gets his
hair entangled in the branches of a terebinth, none of the soldiers dare strike the dangling rebel.
Eventually loab pierces him with three darts. Only then do the arms-bearers move in for the final
kill (2 Sam. 18:9-15). The body of Absalom is buried in a pit, and runners inform the king, who
responds with a devastating sorrow, wailing, "My son Absalom! O my son, my son Absalom! If
only I had died instead of you! O Absalom, my son, my son!" (2 Sam. 19:1).
David goes on in this way until loab persuades him that he is in danger of losing the support
ofhis troops. The king then moves decisively to regain power. He nobly vows not to slay Shimei,
who grovels before him on David's return across the lordan. The king also responds with royal
favor to Mephibosheth, grandson of Saul, who fawningly says that David is "like an angel of the
L O R D " (2 Sam. 19:28). But one cannot help suspect that David is also beset by deep and lingering
loyalties to old King Saul and to his personal covenant with his beloved companion lonathan.
lonathan adjured his friend to show "the LORD'S faithfulness" to him and "faithfulness to my
house"—"even after the L O R D has wiped out every one of David's enemies from the face of the
earth" (1 Sam. 20:15). As 2 Sam. 21:7points out, David remained loyal to his word.
The king's troubles are still not over. Immediately after the revolt of Absalom, there are still
enough supporters of Saul to induce a "scoundrel named Sheba son of Bichri, a Benjaminite"
to sound the horn and proclaim: "We have no portion in David, / N o share in lesse's son! /
Every man to his tent, O Israel!" (2 Sam. 20:1). This call to arms leads to another revolt, which
is eventually put down. Some final features remain. A last contention over the succession, by
Adonijah, takes place during David's final days. David finally confirms Solomon as his succes-
sor, charging him to obey the commandments of God and get rid of his enemies (1 Kings 1-2).
Thus does the king give final advice based on bitter personal experience. Though these chapters
occur after the end of the Book of Samuel, some modern scholars regard this final scene as the
real conclusion to the Davidic history.
Appendixes A series of appendixes concludes the account of David's life in 2 Samuel. Included
are (A) a narrative about the expiation of Saul's murder of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1-14); (B)
further battles against the Philistines (2 Sam. 15-22); (C) David's great song of thanksgiving,
for victories achieved through divine aid (2 Samuel 22); (C') the last words ofDavid (2 Sam.
23:1-7); (B') annals of heroes during the wars against the Philistines (2 Sam. 23:8-38); and
(A') a narrative of the expiation of the plague brought on by God in punishment for the census
taken by David (2 Sam. 24:1-17). Note that the overall sequence of appendixes has been ordered
by the final editor in a chiastic manner, with the themes of the final three appendixes balancing
those of the first three in reverse order.5
The final appendix includes the advice of Gad the seer to David to purchase the threshing
floor of Araunah the lebusite and there build an altar to the Lord. This act "checks" the pestilence
and serves as the dramatic conclusion to the Book of Samuel.
Part 3. The Kingdom ofJudahAlone (2 Kings 18:1-25:21) Part3 o f t h e Book of Kings focuses
on the kingdom o f j u d a h alone and extends from 2 Kings 18:1 through 25:21. The historian
first gives an extensive treatment of King Hezekiah's piety and the salvation of Jerusalem from
foreign invasion (2 Kings 18:1-20:21). Unstated but always implied is the fact that Hezekiah's
purge of paganism contribute to the miraculous intervention of God on behalf of His people,
city, and shrine. A synopsis of the apostasy of King Manasseh is then provided (2 Kings 21:1-9),
together with an oracle that predicts the end of the southern kingdom because of his sins (w.
10-16). Again royal responsibility is underscored as the cause of the destruction. The subsequent
The Prophet leremiah's age when he was called to prophesy is uncertain, since his own self-
reference as "a na'ar" unable "to speak" (ler. 1:6) may indicate that he considered himself either
an undeveloped novice or an inexperienced youth (cf. Exod. 33:11). Either way, the compulsion
of divine destiny that he experienced from this time accompanied him his whole life. As he says,
his prophetic calling was like an invasive and inescapable force (ler. 20:7-9; 23:29), one that
marked his life with social isolation (15:17; 23:9). It was thus not only God's prophecies of
doom that evoked the rage ofleremiah's peers (20:6-7) and contemporary courtiers and kings
(20:1-3; 26:7-24). He frequently expressed antisocial tendencies, like not marrying and having
children (16:1-2) or not sharing in mourning or joy with his neighbors (w. 5, 8), claiming that
this was God's sign to all that national doom and destruction were at hand (16:3-4, 6-7, 9).
The prophet's refusal to support national uprisings and his condemnation of hope even in trying
historical circumstances (21:1-10; 37:3-10) reinforced the reality ofhis isolation. In addition,
The Message. The gist of Jeremiah's prophecies is summed up in the prologue to his pro-
phetic vocation. He was appointed by the Lord "to uproot and to pull down, to destroy and to
overthrow, to build and to plant" (Jer. 1:10). Repeatedly, over a long lifetime devoted to God,
418 OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL BOOKS EXCERPTED IN THE HAFTAROT CYCLE
he prophesied doom and new hope. His doom prophecies against the Judeans are elicited by
breaches of the covenant—both cultic and moral. 20 In the realm of false worship, the people are
charged with various paganizing practices, including fertility rites ( 2 : 2 0 , 2 3 ; 3 : 2 ; 7 : 8 ) , idolatry
( 2 : 2 7 ; 7 : 1 8 ) , childsacrifice ( 7 : 3 1 - 3 2 ; 1 9 : 5 ) , andpractices thatdefiledthe shrine ( 7 : 3 0 ) . With
hyperbolic intensity, the prophet rails: "For your gods have become as many as your towns, O
ludah, and you have set up as many altars to Shame as there are streets in lerusalem—altars for
sacrifice to Baal" ( 1 1 : 1 3 ) .
Whatever the form of deviance, the prophet's bottom line was that such practices constitute
a rejection of God (ler. 2 : 1 1 , 1 7 ) and a disregard of His Lordship ( 2 : 1 9 ) . Similarly, leremiah
considers a rejection of the covenant ( 1 1 : 6 - 1 0 ) and of Torah instruction ( 6 : 1 9 ; 9 : 1 2 ) as the
basis for the immorality ( 5 : 1 - 5 ; 7 : 9 ) and mendacity ( 9 : 3 - 5 ) of the people. The nation has thus
"betrayed" the Lord ( 5 : 1 1 ) and has denied Him and His prophecies outright ( 5 : 1 2 ) : with a
"wayward and defiant heart" the people "have turned aside" ( 5 : 2 3 - 2 8 ) . For all this, the prophet
says, dooms will come against the people. "Shall I not punish such deeds—says the LORD—shall
I not bring retribution on a nation such as this?" ( 5 : 2 9 ) . Disregarding the repeated prophetic
warnings, the people refuse to repent. And so, in the end, God refuses all intercession on their
behalf ( 7 : 1 6 ; 1 5 : 1 ) . "Do not pray for the benefit of this people," says the Lord, "I will exterminate
them by war, famine, and disease" ( 1 4 : 1 1 f.). Doom became inevitable.
leremiah, however, was called not only "to uproot and to pull down" but "to build and to
plant" as well (ler. 1 : 1 0 ) . In fact, many ofhis prophecies of comfort occur along with proclama-
tions of doom. For example, the prophet links his announcement of impending destruction and
exile with a prophecy limiting this disaster. After seventy years, he says, the destroyer will be
destroyed and the exiled nation restored ( 2 5 : 8 - 1 2 ) . leremiah repeats this prophecy with some
variation years later, when he sees the need to tell the exiles of 5 9 7 B.C.E. to resist precipitous
messianic hopes and "to build homes" in Babylon ( 2 9 : 4 - 1 0 ) . On another occasion, immediately
before the great exile of 5 8 6 B.C.E., leremiah performs an outrageous act of hope. He purchases
the field of a relative, over which he had the legal right of redemption and thereby dramatizes his
confidence in God's saving word—that "[hjouses, fields, and vineyards shall again be purchased
in this land" ( 3 2 : 1 5 ) . The people must therefore take the threat of divine doom seriously ( 3 2 :
36), but they must also know that God will be gracious to His people and will again "plant them
in this land faithfully" ( 3 2 : 4 1 ) .
leremiah's prophecies of building and planting are a leitmotif of hope. Speaking to the north-
ern tribes, he presents God's promise as a time when "I will build you firmly again [cod] . . . and
again [cod] you shall plant vineyards on the hills of Samaria" (ler. 3 1 : 4 - 5 ) . This will be a time
of recompense and renewal ( 3 1 : 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 7 ) , a time when "the L O R D has created something new
on earth" ( 3 1 : 2 2 ) . To the ludeans, God also promises a renewal when "I will be watchful over
them to build and to plant" ( 3 1 : 2 8 ) . This national restoration will result in the renewal of the
ancient covenant ( 3 1 : 1 , 3 3 ) . Significantly, this renewed covenant is contrasted with the older
one at Sinai. As part of the new dispensation, God says, "I will put My Teaching [torah] into
their inmost being and inscribe it upon their hearts" ( 3 1 : 3 3 ) . In this way, the external tablets
of Moses—smashed through sin and rebellion—will be restored. The prophecy thus attests to a
profound new consciousness of religious inwardness and renewal.
With this teaching, leremiah forecasts a transformation that is divinely initiated and unilater-
ally effected. N o prior act of repentance is mentioned here. Indeed, as an expression of God's
grace for the sinning exiles, this prophecy of a new covenant parallels the divine promise of a new
heart formulated in the contemporary prophecies ofEzekiel (Ezek. 1 1 : 1 9 ; 3 6 : 2 6 ) . Moreover,
this stress on a transformation of the established symbols of religiosity continues earlier prophe-
cies of a spiritual metamorphosis. 21 For example, leremiah had earlier announced that in future
days "men shall no longer [cod] speak of the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD, nor . . . make
another." Rather, "they shall call lerusalem 'Throne of the LORD, ' and all nations shall assemble
there" (ler. 3 : 1 6 - 1 7 ) .
The power of these promises—as statements of hope in the new and renewed, and as rejections
of the old and passe—is never more profoundly indicated than by the little particle 'od, "again."
The Message The hallmark of the oracles in the first part of the Book of Ezekiel, chapters
4-24, is the prophet's repeated insistence upon the inevitability of the doom and exile to befall
the citizens ofjerusalem because of their sins.17 Indeed, the contrast between the divine visions
of chapters 1 and 10 and the divinely guided visions of the sins performed in Jerusalem (chapter
8) is noteworthy in this regard. It highlights Ezekiel's experience of the transcendent majesty and
holiness of God, over against his vision of Israel's debased practices—these being a betrayal of the
covenant in its moral and ritual aspects (the two are frequently linked; cf. Ezekiel 6 - 7 and 22).
The inevitability of doom is, in fact, a recurrent theme in the prophecies of Ezekiel (Ezek.
12:21-28; 14:12-20; 21:1-7); intercessions of mercy are utterly rejected (9:10). It is further-
more striking that, in contrast with his contemporary fellow prophet Jeremiah, Ezekiel offers no
direct call for repentance throughout chapters 4-24. One is therefore left with the sense that the
time for hope is past and that the prophecies of doom are geared to impress upon the people of
Jerusalem the realization that their punishment is directly due to their rejection of the covenant
(cf. 6:1-14; 16:36). Not only the shorter oracles, but also the larger allegorical retrospectives
oflsrael's faithless past as a covenantal bride of God (chapters 16 and 23) confirm this sense of
an imminent fate. The nation, having rejected God in the past, must therefore bear the conse-
quences of their behavior; indeed, having disregarded God's covenant, the people will come to
acknowledge their God in and through the dooms that will befall them.
Just this conclusion, one may suggest, is the key reason why many of Ezekiel's oracles
of doom conclude with the phrase "that you [Israel] shall know that I am the Lord." 18 The
educational function of the punishments is thus designed to confront the people in Judah
and Babylon with the inexorable consequences of their covenantal disobedience and thereby
promote repentance after the exile (cf. Ezek. 6:9-10, 13; 12:6; 14:11, 22-23). By the same
token, the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem will also serve an educational function
for the exiles, since through their profane behavior they will publicly vindicate the justice of
God's punishment (cf. 14:22-23).
Ezekiel's earliest oracles are thus utterly bleak and hopeless, the dark and fateful content of
the scroll of "lamentations, dirges, and woes" that he internalized in the course of his prophetic
inauguration (Ezek. 2:8-10). Even the apparent contradiction to this feature, in which Ezekiel
is instructed to act as a "warner" to the people in Jerusalem (3:17-21)—to tell them that each
person's return-to-righteousness or backsliding-to-evil fixes that individual's fate for "life" or
"death"—does not obliterate the pall of the opening collection of doom oracles. For one thing,
Ezekiel never acts on this task in chapters 4-24. This suggests that this dimension ofhis prophetic
Part 1 (Joel 1-2) presents a detailed and graphic depiction of an unprecedented locust plague,
which attacks like a raving enemy that wipes out the food supply of the people (1:2-7, 10-12,
16-19). The prophet exhorts the people, the elders, and the priests to don sackcloth and beseech
God's mercy through repentance, fasting, and prayer. He tells the people to rend their hearts
and "turn back" to their gracious Lord—for out of compassion He may "turn and relent" (2:
12-14). For their part, the priests are urged to weep and cry out a liturgy of anguish, that the
Lord may "spare" His people (2:17).
The turning point comes in response: "Then the L O R D was roused on behalf of His land and
had compassion upon His people," and in a great word of promise, He tells them that He will
provide new grain, wine, and oil in abundance (2:18-19). The liturgies of penitence are now
replaced by divine assurances and joyful proclamations by the ravished soil. Rains will come;
the threshing floors will fill to overflowing (2:23-24). Thus will God manifest His presence "in
the midst oflsrael" (2:27).
Part 2 (Joel 3-4) goes on to speak of the end of days: there will be a renewal of prophecy
(3:1-2), but soon a "great and terrible day of the L O R D comes" (v. 3), when "the sun shall turn
into darkness and the moon into blood" (v. 4). Only those who invoke the name of the Lord
shall escape (v. 5).
And then there is a report of the restored fortunes of Israel and a judgment of the nations
for all that they have done to the people (Joel 4:1-8). In a rousing call, the nations are told to
"prepare for battle" (v. 9)—and, in an eerie reversal of Isaiah's ancient oracle of peace, told to
beat their plowshares into swords (v. 10)! The multitudes will be judged on a day when the "sun
and moon are darkened" (v. 15). The nations ofEgypt and Edom will become a desolate waste;
but as for Israel, the Lord Himself will be their shelter. He will dwell in Zion, and the earth will
flow with wine and milk (w. 17-18, 21).
Clearly a different scene and language move in the two parts. Nevertheless, there is much
verbal and thematic continuity—for example, the dark and devastating day of the Lord (Joel 2:
2 and 3:4) and the eventual divine gifts to Israel of natural bounty (2:24 and 4:13). 2 What the
first part portrays in terms of a natural disaster, caused by withdrawal of the divine presence, the
second part presents as God's supernatural presence in terms of active judgment against Israel's
enemies and active grace for His people. And what the first part presents as an event affecting
Israel alone becomes in the second part a decision of judgment against the nations.
The leitmotif of disaster in both parts is a day when the land's bounty is laid waste and the
lights of heaven go out. By contrast, God's grace is a time of flowing water and healthy fields.
The poles of death and life are starkly registered: the dependence ofhuman life upon divine care
for existence is manifest.
Finally, one is left to ponder the two parts of the composition: whether the book divides into
preexilic and postexilic strands,3 whether the work is a unity and the locusts are a symbol of the
judgment of the Lord, 4 or even whether some natural event stimulated visions of an apocalyptic
moment. 5 As to its date, in addition to liturgical practices and language,6 the whole tone of the
book suggests that we are dealing with a period sometime after the restoration of the Second
Temple. Note in particular that the imagery of God dwelling in Zion and the Temple as a fount
The Message Despite the palpably diverse genres of the book, there is enough coherence among
the parts to justify the assertion of Don Isaac Abravanel that the work is "one interconnected
prophecy from the beginning of the book to its end." Thus the several complaints of chapter 1
lead the prophet to demand God's answer—which comes in the form of a prophecy in chapter
2. Chapter 3 envisions the long-awaited advent of God against His enemies and ends with a
renewed trust in God's deliverance. This confidence resolves the strong theological tension with
which the book opens. God is fiercely criticized for countenancing the evil of the enemy, and
now, after the prophet's charge to endure these times in faith, Habakkuk exults in his newfound
trust that God will judge the earth with righteousness. The earlier word of confidence, given to
quick and easy reading (Hab. 2:2-4), is now replaced by an awesome vision of divine judgment
andpunishment (3:3-15).
These thematic transformations are reinforced on the literary level by a series of verbal
variations. Intentional or not, they underscore complex connections among the units. This is
especially true of parts 1 and 2. For one thing, the initial prophetic critique of the abuse of the
tzaddik ("just man" [Hab. 1:4]; "one in the right" [1:13]) is echoed in God's assertion that
"the righteous man [tzaddik]" will be rewarded for his fidelity (2:4); for another, the very term
used for this faithfulness ('emunato) harks back to the unbelievable (lo} ta'aminu) attack of the
Chaldeans mentioned at the outset of the book (1:5). A similar move from the negative to the
positive marks the uses of the verb habit ("look at"). In the first part it appears in all three units,
in order to express both disbelief in God's inaction (1:3, 13) and a call to observe the forthcoming
violence of the Chaldeans (1:5). It is therefore fitting that just this verb recurs in the second part,
in a "Woe" oracle denouncing the evils of this horde—who lewdly intoxicate their foes "to gaze
[habit] upon their nakedness [;me'orehem]" (2:15). And as if measure for measure, the punish-
ment announced in part 3 alludes to this crime: for just as the evil ones exposed the nakedness
(;me'orehem) of their foes, so will God "bare and ready" ('eryah ta'or) His bow (3:9) and "raze"
('arot) the villains' home from top to bottom (3:13). This is God's great "deed" (po'olekha) (3:
2)—a manifestation of justice that will quash the "work" (po'al) of horrors decried at the outset
(1:5). Habakkuk's complaint is thus finally and fully heeded: God will not only send a word of
hope, but a work of victory as well.
The overall progression among the parts is succinctly captured by another cluster of puns.
Thus, though the initial destruction causes all observers to "be utterly astounded" (ve-hitammehu
temahu) (1:5), the faithful are advised to wait for God's victory "even if it tarries" {yitmahmah)
(2:3) —"for it will surely come" in due course, when God will flash forth in victory and cause
"the deep" (tehom) to roar in terror (3:10). These alliterations deftly interlock the three themes of
the book: the evil of the Chaldeans, the challenge to await God's advent in faith, and the mythic
438 OVERVIEW OF BIBLICAL BOOKS EXCERPTED IN THE HAFTAROT CYCLE
battle itself. God's just power in history is finally vindicated, and Habakkuk challenges God to
contain the violence of Babylon and reveal His saving light. The divine response is portrayed in
an awesome, apocalyptic spectacle.
As the capstone to the promises and visions of Zechariah 1-8, chapters 9-11 and especially 12-14
envision a series of battles and transformations. At the center will be Jerusalem, the House of
David, and the holy Temple. As with the conclusion to part 1, so also part 2 concludes with a
picture of universal worship of the Lord in Jerusalem. However, the second part goes further
than the first in its sense of apocalyptic disaster, purification, and divine dominion. Emblazoned
over the final chapter is the proclamation that in the end of days, "the L O R D shall be king over all
the earth; in that day there shall be one L O R D with one name" ( 1 4 : 9 ) . What was only hinted at
earlier now becomes explicit: Jerusalem is and will be proclaimed the center of all the earth, and
its Temple will be a fount of blessing and healing waters for all. In a world utterly transformed,
the essential holiness and purity of the shrine will affect all pilgrims. Even the bells of the horses
will be like objects of priestly purity; even metal pots will be holy vessels for the meat of those
who come to Jerusalem for sacrificial worship.
With these events, the sacred presence of the Lord in Jerusalem will be manifest, and the
earlier promise that Jerusalem would be a city without walls for all peoples will be fulfilled for
the glory of God.
He was born in Sopha, after the return from the exile. Even in his boyhood he lived a
blameless life, and since all the people paid him honor for his piety and his mildness, they
called him "Malachi" (meaning angel); he was also fair to look upon. Moreover, whatever
things he uttered in prophecy were repeated on that same day by a messenger of God who
appeared . . . . While yet in his youth he was joined to his fathers in his own field.2
Clearly this version conflates the possibilities, regarding "Malachi" as both a name and a designa-
tion. Presumably, Sopha is Zuph in the territory of Zebulun (cf. 1 Sam. 1:1).
The Message The overarching concern of the several pronouncements is to emphasize the
contempt and disgrace of God brought about by the people's impious and fraudulent worship.
The misuse of the Temple and its service is particularly emphasized—both at the beginning of
the book, in connection with the priests' and people's acts of ritual sacrilege (Mai. 1:6-2:9);
and at the end, where tithes and their benefits are emphasized (3:6-12). Just as at the outset the
impiety is characterized as "scorn" of God's Name and lack of "reverence" for Him (1:6), so too
at the close those who "revere the L O R D " (3:16; cf. v. 20) are promised special favor on the day
of judgment. The theme of sullying the sacred in thought and deed thus runs across the whole
collection. In this regard, intermarriage and divorce are also condemned as sacrilege (2:11, 14).
Just as ritual impiety is a breach of the covenant of Levi (2:5), improper marriage is also deemed
a covenantal infraction. Not surprisingly, the favor promised the reverent is that they will once
Footnotes have been culled from the larger body ofMasoretic lore. Most notes point out a tex-
tual anomaly, lest the reader be puzzled or think it a mistake. To decipher the shorthand style,
consider that a noted fact must be both unusual and intended.* Hebrew letters are referred to via
a single hatch mark. The following glossary lists terms in alphabetical order—without prefixed
conjunctions, prepositions, or the definite article.
nwm pointed with a dagesb—which for '"1 is rare
n^n rabbinic law governing scrolls for ritual use
NTST small
npi^n division
ion unusual spelling—the stated letter is missing
-pm unusual spelling—the stated letter ('X or 'H) is superfluous (not part of root
or grammatical form)
u^rnnnn our base manuscript; the Leningrad Codex
tfnp xb) DTQ written but not read aloud; part of the written tradition but omitted in the
reading tradition
nms QIS inn Aleppo Codex—a well-crafted, early medieval manuscript
wm TI^ plural verb form
nx]^ TI^ means "enmity, enemy"—a rare homonym
unusual spelling—the vowel-letter is superfluous given the way this word
is vocalized
mpiM pointed or vowelized
nNnpn nmoa reading tradition
m x nou variant version in other Masoretic manuscripts, preferred by our translators
nm silent
np] extraordinary dot (nikud)
repeated
•pyDM pTno caution: those who think (using logic or rules of grammar) that the text should
read here as follows are mistaken
h t w (n)rms poetry format; format of this poem
root; spelling that shows a word's basic meaning
myun change of vocalization
* For example, the footnote "IDH literally means "The letter is missing." But in
context it means: "The letter 'H, which is normal in the spelling of this word, is missing
in this instance—according to how the text has come down to us. So when you write
the text, leave out that letter here; but when you read the text, supply that missing letter
in your mind."
459
TABLE OF TORAH READINGS
Rosh Ha-Shanah
FirstDay Gen.21:l-34;Num.29:l-6*
Second Day Gen. 22:1-24; Num. 29:1-6*
Sabbath Shuvah Weekly portion
Yom Kippur
Morning Lev. 16:1-34; Num. 29:7-11*
Afternoon Lev. 18:1-30
Sukkot (Tabernacles)
First Day Lev. 22:26-23:44; Num. 29:12-16*
Second Day Lev. 22:26-23:44; Num. 29:12-16*
Intermediate Sabbath Exod. 33:12-34:26; Num. 29:17-22 (3rdday),
Num. 29:23-28 (5th day), or Num. 29:26-31 (6th day)*
Shemini Atzeret Deut. 14:22-16:17; a Num. 29:35-30:1*
Simhat Torah Deut. 33:1-34:12; Gen. 1:1-2:3; Num. 29:35-30:1*
Pesah (Passover)
First Day Exod. 12:21-51; Num. 28:16-25*
Second Day Lev. 22:26-23:44; Num. 28:16-25*
Intermediate Sabbath Exod. 33:12-34:26; Num. 28:19-25*
Seventh Day Exod. 13:17-15:26; Num. 28:19-25*
Eighth Day Deut. 15:19-16:17; b Num. 28:19-25*
Shavuot (Pentecost)
First Day Exod. 19:1-20:23; Num. 28:26-31*
Second Day Deut. 15:19-16:17; b Num. 28:26-31*
Ninth of Av
Morning Deut. 4:25-40
Afternoon Exod. 32:11-14; 34:1-10
Fast Day Afternoons Exod. 32:11-14; 34:1-10
Israeli Independence Day Nonec
* Maftir.
a On weekdays, Sephardim read Deut. 15:19-16:17.
b On Shabbat: Deut. 14:22-16:17.
c Some congregations read one of the following passages: Deut. 7:1-8:18; Deut. 7:12-8:18; Deut.
11:8-21; orDeut. 30:1-10.
TABLE OF TORAH READINGS 462
INDEX OF HAFTAROT IN ENGLISH ALPHABETICAL; ORDER