Monday, September 02, 2019

haftarah of shabbos rosh chodesh - 7 nechemta

The Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 425) paskens that when rosh chodesh Elul falls on Shabbos we still lein the haftarah "aniya so'ara" of the 7 d'nechemta cycle and not the haftarah of rosh chodesh.  The Rama disagrees and writes that minhag ashkenaz is to read the haftarah of rosh chodesh.

I was wondering what the din should be if you are in a shul that follows minhag ashkenaz but they get mixed up and read aniya so'arah. 

When discussing this halacha over our Shabbos meal I pointed out the reason given by the Mishna Berura for the psak of the Rama: since the haftara of rosh chodesh contains pesukim that refer to the nechama of Yerushalayim, by reading it we in effect cover all our bases -- we cover the theme of nechama, as well as the theme of rosh chodesh.

My wife pointed out that there is another possible reason to lein the haftarah of rosh chodesh: it is more tadir than that of "aniya so'arah."  (We then had a debate whether this is indeed true.)  Indeed, there are poskim who cite this justification as well.

Perhaps my question hinges on which of these two reasons in correct.  According to the M.B.'s reason, the Rama agrees in principle that the chiyuv is to read a haftarah of nechama -- he just holds that if you can cover the extra base of rosh chodesh, why not do so.  B'dieved, I would say that if you read "aniya so'arah" and only covered the theme of nechama, since that is the ikar chiyuv, you are yotzei.  However, if the reason to read the haftarah of rosh chodesh is because of tadir, then that is the real chiyuv -- the chiyuv of reading a haftarah of nechama is pushed off.  You would accomplish nothing even b'dieved by reading "aniya so'arah."

Check the notes in the Dirshu M.B. and they tell you to treat the b'dieved case like any case where you read the wrong haftarah -- you have to correct it and read the right one.  I guess my reasoning is wrong.


  1. Suppose by mistake a Shul reads Sos Assiss on the week that we are supposed to read Kumi Ori. Would you argue they are yotzei b'dieved because both are nechama? Or would you accept that the standard rule in Dirshu applies, as on any other Shabbat?

    I don't think the Rama's rationale for reading Hashamayim Kis'i is fundamentally different in nature from why we assign each of the other nechemtas to a given week. A minimum requirement is that they all be comforting; but then there is also presumably some additional reason -- maybe simply tradition, or maybe relevance to the parsha, or (as here) relevance to Rosh Chodesh -- for assigning each one to a given week.

    Bottom line, it seems like the b'dieved rule in Dirshu applies even if another text that is read by mistake also satisfies the main theme of the haftara for that week. Evidently that isn't good enough. Otherwise, there would be many exceptions to Dirshu's rule throughout the entire 7 weeks, and other times too.

    1. Sure there is a reason for the order -- the Abudraham explains the haftaras are a whole dialogue between Klal Yisrael and G-d -- but the burden in on you to prove to me that that is m'akeiv. If reading aniya so'ara is not ma'akeiv this week, then prove to me the order is ma'akeiv any week.

  2. "if you read "aniya so'arah" and only covered the theme of nechama, since that is the ikar chiyuv, you are yotzei"

    but reading aniya so'arah, when Yeshayahu 66:13 is available, is a cheit! [even for the theme of nechama, one isn't yotzei*]. so maybe your reasoning persists (or does Steven, preceding, close the case?)?

    *or only yotzei b'dieved b'dieved, which leaves too much to be desired...

  3. I see where you say it's not "only" your wife who suggests the reason is tadir veshe'eino tadir. However, it surprised me. Isn't the rule about which of two mitzvos at hand you should do first, and not a means of choosing one over the other?

  4. Another example of the same phenomenon: S.A. 684:3 and MB sk 10.

  5. but what would be the ultimate consolation? if one answers, 'the third Temple era itself', surely that will require the resumption of nevua? and if nevua ceased upon the cessation of an [intense] urge to idolatry, owing to prayers of Chazal, then maybe "our tefilos for a Mikdash" (last paragraph, previous post) should be for a cancellation of that very trade-off? should be for a resurgence of the idolatrous urge*?!

    *this suggestion should not be confused, G-d forbid, with an invitation akin to 13:7, but rather means asking on High for a stumbling block plain to see, hoping to undo the empty** balance effected by the Sages (and so recover live nevuah [divrei chaim sans radio waves], with all that that promises). maybe one needs play with fire to finally fire it [the miz'bei'ach] up? {relevant rubrics here: how to tweak the same ole same ole status quo; how to create a shortcut ('the short way that is short' which Eruvin missed)}

    **Judaism without nevua is Hashem put on mute (but not rendered 'deaf' one would hope) {mute in the narrow sense; He of course 'speaks' other than words}

    1. did the Sages claim that idolatry's war of attrition, left unchecked, would eventually reduce practicing Jews to a single man (the righteous shepherd, perhaps, one Ploni Almoni)? to a state of decimation which, however extreme, might yet have been acceptable to Hashem (Shemos 32:10)?

      if the ontological disposition of the earth, Bereishis perek 1, is for human habitation (Yeshayahu 45:18), the ontological dispositions of the Holy One and man, Bereishis perek 2, are for both Mercy (Hashem Elokim) AND dialogue (or even just one-way Monologue). to separate these two? to secure His Mercy (on the souls susceptible to idolatry), but to negate by that the live communication between G-d and man?? {did those saved from warped worship take to normative service with vitality fully intact? did 'attendance numbers' dip for lack of prophets in the streets?}

      8 billion earthlings today, and little compulsive avodah zarah among the Jews, and no nevua; a lingering galus, and grand defection/assimilation, and no nevua either coming or going...

      ...could the reversal in our day of the [reputed] ancient trade-off be achieved, it would not mean easily outsmarting the idolatrous urge nor trivializing its strength, but risking all forces to range amid the invigorated klal, with prophecy in Israel like the wild times of yore...