The Haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai
The Haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai[1]
By Eli Duker
The old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Parashat Behar and Ezekiel 34 for Parashat Behukkotai, and this is attested to in most of the relevant Cairo Geniza fragments. One of them, Cambridge T-S B15.4, aside from also indicating this, is written in the Oriental Hebrew script and vocalized with the Babylonian supralinear system, indicating its antiquity. Moreover, these haftarot are listed by R’ Shlomo ben Natan,[2] and their verses are the basis for the Zulatot in the Piyutim of R’ Shmuel ben Hoshana[3] written for these Parshiyot.[4]
It would seem that Jeremiah 16:19 was chosen for Behar because the prophet’s pronouncements of “Cursed is the man who relies on people” and “Blessed is the man who relies on Hashem” echo the blessing, mentioned in Parashat Behar, that is given to the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in anticipation of the Sabbatical year.
It is not clear to me why Ezekiel 34 was chosen as the haftara for Behukkotai, but it may be that its metaphor of a shepherd tending his flock (34:12) brought up immediate associations with the commandment to tithe the flocks and herds elaborated on in the Parsha.[5]
However, in Europe a new haftara beginning with Jeremiah 32:6 appears for Behar quite early on. Meanwhile, the original haftara for that parasha was “moved” to Behukkotai. These haftarot appear in R’ Shmuel Hanagid’s haftara list that is brought in Sefer Ha’eshkol,[6] and in R’ Elazar of Worms’s book on haftarot.[7] They are also listed by R’ Ya’akov Hazan in Etz Haim,[8] which serves as an account of the practices of Anglo Jewry on the eve of the Expulsion.
Abudarham lists only these haftarot for these two parashiyot,[9] and they are also the only haftarot in all of the Ashkenazic Humashim and haftara books in manuscript that I have come across,[10] excepting one[11] that reversed the two haftarot, placing Jeremiah 16:19 with Behar and Jeremiah 32:6 with Behukkotai. Moreover, they are the haftarot in the only humash[12] in our possession that is beyond a doubt from pre-expulsion Spain,[13] and all subsequent humashim that follow the Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices.
It is impossible to determine exactly why communities chose to change the practice regarding the haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai, or when and where this began to take place.
Nonetheless, Jeremiah 32:6 is an exceptionally appropriate haftara for Parshat Behar, as it describes how Jeremiah performed the commandment of redeeming the land formerly owned by a relative, a central part of the parasha.
As it is such an obvious fit, why did the Babylonians not choose it themselves? I believe that this is due to the fact that the old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 32 as the haftara for Va’ethannan, beginning with 32:16. Later on, when communities that read the Torah according to the Babylonian annual cycle adopted the practice of reading “Nahamu”[14] (Isaiah 40:1) on the Sabbath following Tish’a B’av, when Parshat Va’ethannan is always read, Va’ethannan’s original haftara became “available” and thus was deemed very appropriate for Behar, while Behar’s original haftara was “moved” to Behukkotai.[15] The new haftarah for Behar – and the moving of its old one to Behukkotai – were accepted more than any other “new” haftara practice.[16] Only the Italian and Yemenite rites, most conservative regarding retention of Babylonian haftarot, read the two hafarot as they were originally read.[17]
The practice in Poznań, interestingly enough, was to retain Jeremiah 32:6 as the haftara of Behar, while retaining the old Ezekiel 34 as the haftara for Behukkotai.[18]
Bibliography of Printed Works
Avraham ben Yitzhak of Narbonne. ”Sefer Ha’eshkol” Eds. Shalom and Hanokh Albeck. Jerusalem: Wagshal, 1984.
Azulai, Menahem. “Lifuyutam shel Yehudei Bavel -Kit’ei Geniza)” (Azulai, Ada. trans.) Jerusalem: Azulai, 2010.
Beukum, Walter Jaques van. “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity – liturgical poems from Yehudah” Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Biton, Eliyahu. “Or Yahudut Luv” Biriah: Yeshivat Beit Yosef, 1982.
“Sefer Nahalat Avot -Minhagei Yehudei Luv” Biria: Biton, 2007.
“B’rocho L’Mnachem – essays contributed in honor of Rabbi Menachem H. Eichenstein” Ed. Norman Paris. St Louis: United Orthodox Jewish Community – Vaad Hoeir of St. Louis, 1955
David Berabi Yosef Berabi David Ben Abduraham. “Abduraham Hashalem” Jerusalem: Osha, 1963.
Elazar of Worms. “Peirush Al Hahaftarot” Warsaw: Zisberg, 1875.
Ginzburg, Christian D. “The Massorah” Jerusalem: Makor, 1971.
“Hamisha Humshei Torah: Im haftarot Vihamesh Megilot” Eliezer ben Avraham Alaatansi, 1486.
“Humash Lima’an Shmo Be’ahava” publisher and date of publication unknown.
“Sefer Vayikra, Hamisha Humshei Torah Im Peirush Rashi,” V’im Da’at Mikra” Ed. Menahem Bula. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1991.
Jacob ben Jehuda Hazan of London. “The Etz Chaim” ed. Israel Brodie. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962
“Machzor LiYamim Noraim” ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Koren, 1970.
Shlomo ben Natan. “Shlomo Ben Nattan Siddur Al Pi Hage’onim- Chibro Rabbenu Shlomo B’rabi Nattan.” Ed. Shmuel Chagai. Jerusalem: 1995.
Shmuel ben Hoshana, “The Yostserot of R Samuel the Third.” Edited by Joseph Yahalom and Noaya Katsumata. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, 2014.
Simha of Vitry. “Mahzor Vitry.” Edited by Arye Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Makhon Otzar Haposkim, 2009.
Talmudic Encyclopedia, Edited by Meyer Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Shlolmo Yosef Zevin. Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Publishing, 1961.
Zeruk, Refael. “Luah Dinim Uminhagim Kehilot Yotzei Luv” Bat-Yam: Ginzei Refael, 2008
[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avi Grossman for editing both the original Hebrew version article as well as my English translation. I would also like to thank my son Moshe Duker for assisting me in looking up haftarot in printed humashim.
[2] Shlomo Ben Nattan, Siddur Al Pi Hageonim, p. 201.
[3] “The Yotserot of R Samuel the Third.” Vol. 1, pp. 519, 528-259.
[4] In Fried’s list of haftarot that appears as an appendix to Volume X of the Talmudic Encyclopedia, Isaiah 1:19 is brought as an alternate haftara for Parashat Behukkotai.This was based on Zulay’s understanding in Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, regarding a piyut composed by “Yehuda” for “Im Behukotai” with verses beginning with Isaiah 1:21 Zulay believed Yehuda to be Babylonian, that that was the haftara for this Parsha. However, evidence brought by van Bekkum in his introduction to “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah” shows that Yehuda was a Palestinian Paytan. In addition, Isaiah 1:24 was the haftara for Sedra “Im Behukkotai” in the Palestinian triennial cycle of Torah readings. See Ofer, “Hahatfarot Al Pi Haminhag Hatlat -Shenati” (here). I would like to thank Prof. Yosef Yahalom for directing me to van Bekkum’s work.
[5] See Daat Mikra, Vayikra Vol. 1, pp. 323-324. The other reasons given there seem less convincing, as this is not a haftara of rebuke.
[6] Albeck Edition, p. 181.
[7] “Peirush Al Hahaftarot”. p. 8. The haftara for Behar is missing in the Ginsburg-Moscow Ms.of Mahzor Vitry while it lists Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Behokkotai. See Goldschhmidt edition, Vol.2, p. 579.
[8] Vol. 1, p. 54.
[9] P. 303.
[10] Mss. Breslau 9: Cambridge St. Johns A1: Vatican EBR 13 14 15 16: Parma 1885 2046 2148 2818: 3083 3085: British Library 9401 9403:
[11] Ms. Vatican EBR 20.
[12] Printed in Hijar in 1486. Another humash with the same haftarot for these parashiyot is believed to have been printed in Spain as well. See the National Library of Israel website: here.
[13] The practice in Saragosa was to read the original Babylonian haftarot. See “The Massorah,” Vol. 2b, p. 486.
[14] The practice of reading Nahamu on the Sabbath following Tisha B’Av was much more prevalent than the practice of reading special haftarot in subsequent weeks. Rambam (Tefilla 13:19) writes that Nahamu was the “practice of the people,’ (Nahagu Haam) while he describes the practice of reading the other six haftarot of Consolation as a local custom.The Italian practice is to only read haftarot of Consolation for the remainder of Av, but this is not directly related to my main thesis, as Italians read Jeremiah 16:19 for Behar.
[15] Parshat Behar plays a unique role in the Ashkenazic liturgy for the Omer period. In the Western rite, R. Baruch of Mainz’s “Aharei Nimkar Geula Tihyeh Lo” is the zulat for that Sabbath, while in Eastern Ashkenaz the Geula “Yakush Ma’yano” is said. Both of these piyutim beseech Hashem, as our “close relative”, to perform the “commandment”of redeeming us. No other piyutim from the Omer liturgy are connected to the weekly parashiyot. However, in spite of the strong connection that Ashkenazic Jewry felt to the redemption commandments listed in Behar, is is unlikely that it is the reason for their choice of haftara, which appeared on the scene quite early, before the composition of these piyutim.
It is also worth noting that there has been a historical trend to eliminate haftarot of rebuke from the book of Ezekiel, but that doesn’t seem to be relevant to the haftara of Behukkotai as it is not a haftara of rebuke. See note 4.
[16] Unlike the old haftarot for Shemot (Ezekiel 16)and Bo (Isaiah 19) that were retained in some Spanish and Babylonian communities up to the present day. See the list in TE, pp. 703-706.
[17] Humash L’maan Sh’mo B’Ahava claims that Libyan communities read Jeremiah 16:19 for Parashat Behar. No other sources back up this claim, and Luah Dinim U’Minhagim Yotzei Luv (2008, pp. 137-138) lists the “standard” haftarot for these parashiyot.
[18] See Mirsky, Shmuel K, in “Pinkas Bet Haknesset D’K”K Pozna” in “B’rcho L’Menachem” p 262. The Poznan community preserved various customs with an Italian connection that either disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz, or never got there in the first place.
For instance, they read Dirshu (Isaiah 55:6) as the haftara for the Sabbath between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in years when there was a Sabbath between Yom Kippur and Sukkot long after that practice disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz. See Mirsky, p. 264.
Moreover, during Minha of Yom Kippur they recited the kiklars of “Emunat Om Noteret” and “Efa’er L’Malki Bakodesh. The Kiklars come from the Kalirian kedushta “Odecha Bekol Areiv”, which is recited as the kedushta for Yom Kippur Minha in the Roman community. In Poznan they were inserted into the non-Kalirian Kedushta “Eitan Hikkir Emunatekha” which was recited in all Ashkenaz. (In Nusach Polin only the Koteret is inserted.) See Mirsky, p. 270, and Goldschmidt in the introduction to Mahzor L’yamim Nora’im, Vol. 2, pp. 45-46. I would like to thank Dr. Gabriel Wasserman for pointing this out to me.
