[1] As per the Tosafos Yom Tov (Megillah, Perek Bnei Ha’Ir, Mishnah 4 s.v. l’chisidran), citing the Sefer HaTishbi (Shoresh Petter). A similar background is given by the Abudraham (Seder Parshiyos V’Haftaros) and the Bach (Orach Chaim 284; although he does not cite which actual wicked king was the one who was gozer shmad shelo likros b’Torah). Alternately, the Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 135: 2) posits that as the Mishnah in Megillah (31a) lists reading the haftarah along with special Torah readings that Moshe Rabbeinu established, it is most likely that the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah established their reading. However, there are other reasons given, dating far earlier – back to the times of the Gaonim (Teshuvos HaGaonim 55; see also Shibbolei Haleket 44). In the words of Rav Yirmiyohu Kaganoff in a recent fascinating article titled ‘An Unusual Haftara,’ (http://www.rabbikaganoff.com/an-unusual-haftara/): “Some early sources report that, in ancient times, a haftarah was recited towards the end of Shacharis everyday of the year. At the point of davening when we recite Uva Letziyon, they would take out a sefer Navi and read about ten verses together with their Aramaic translation, the common Jewish parlance at the time. Then, they recited the two main pesukim of kedushah, Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh… and Boruch Kevod… together with their Aramaic translations. In those days, all men used to study Torah for several hours after davening, before occupying themselves with their daily livelihoods. The Navi was recited to guarantee that people fulfilled the daily requirement to study some Biblical part of the Torah, in addition to the daily requirement of studying both Mishnah and Gemara. This daily practice of incorporating some “haftarah” reading ended when people needed to spend more time earning a living. To ensure that this practice of studying some Tanach daily at the end of davening would not be forgotten, they still recited the verses of Kedusha, a practice mentioned in the Gemara(Sotah 49a). Around the recital of these two verses developed the prayer we say daily that begins with the pasuk “Uva Letzion.”Although the daily “haftarah”ceased at this time, on Shabbos and Yom Tov, when people do not work, the haftarah readings continued. As a result, there is no need to mention Uva Letzion immediately after Kriyas HaTorah on Shabbos and Yom Tov, since that is when we recite the haftarah. For this reason, Uva Letzion is postponed until Mincha. It is noteworthy that although the second reason is better known and is quoted frequently by halachic commentaries (from the Bach, onwards), the first reason is found in much earlier sources. While the earliest source mentioning the second approach was the Abudraham, who lived in the early fourteenth century, the first source is found in writings of the Gaonim, well over a thousand years ago.” Rav Kaganoff continues that “I suspect that both historical reasons are accurate: Initially, the haftarah was instituted when the Jews were banned from reading the Torah in public; they instituted reading the haftaros as a reminder of the mitzvah of public Torah reading. After that decree was rescinded and the mitzvah of Kriyas HaTorah was reinstituted, Jews continued the practice of reading the Neviim and even extended it as a daily practice to encourage people to study the Written Torah every day. When this daily practice infringed on people’s ability to earn a living, they limited it to non-workdays.”

[2] Including the Machzor Vitry (261 - 262), Abudraham (ibid.), the Mordechai (Megillah, end Ch. Bnei Ha’Ir 831, end s.v. haghah), Tosafos (Megillah 31b s.v. rosh), Ran (ad loc.), and Rashba (ad loc.).

[3] See Machzor Vitry and Abudraham (ibid.; as well as the Levush O.C. 428: 8) for two separate reasons why the Shiva D’Nechemta are in its specific order.

[4] Although the Pesikta, according to the Abudraham, maintains that there should be two haftaros of repentance, common minhag is that only one, Shuva Yisrael, is read on a Shabbos. The other, Dirshu Hashem Bi’Heematzo, is read on Tzom Gedalyah (by Mincha) instead. [This is especially important, as the Gemara Rosh Hashana (18a) explains that this exhortation is actually referring to the Aseres Yemei Teshuva.] See Tosafos (ibid.), Tur (Orach Chaim 428: 8) and Beis Yosef (ad loc. end s.v. umashekasav).

[5] See also Shu”t Noda B’Yehuda (Tinyana, Orach Chaim 11).

[6] Mordechai (ibid).

[7] Beis Yosef (Orach Chaim 425: 1 s.v. uma”sh), Abudraham (ibid.).

[8] Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 425: 1).

[9] See however Shu”t Divrei Malkiel (vol. 3: 27), who opines that for Sefardim it is possible that ‘Machar Chodesh’ would still be the proper reading as it mentions the ‘Kevius of Rosh Chodesh in its proper time.’

[10] See Kaf Hachaim (Orach Chaim 425: 13), Shu”t Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi (7), Shu”t Yechaveh Daas (vol. 3: 45), Rav Mordechai Eliyahu’s Darchei Halacha glosses to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (128: 5), and Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 581, par. Od B’Hilchos Chodesh Elul 7). The Rambam (Hilchos Tefilla Ch. 13: 14) actually implies this way as well.

[11] Rema (Orach Chaim 425: 1 and in Darchei Moshe ad loc.), based on the Sefer Haminhagim (whom he refers to as ‘Minhagim Shelanu’, beg. Ch. Minhag shel Rosh Chodesh Elul v’Erev Rosh Hashana; although some say he is referring to the Maharil’s Sefer Haminhagim, Chilukei Haftaros). He mentions that several other Rishonim, including the Ohr Zarua, Maharil, Mahar”i Weil, and the Tur rule this way as well.

[12] See, for example, Brachos 59b, Megillah 29b, Pesachim 114a, Sukka 54b and 56a, and Zevachim 91a.

[13] These additional reasons were not written by the Sefer Haminhagim himself, but are found in the Haghos there (90), as well as in the works of later authorities mentioned in this article.

[14] The Rema himself, as well as most other authorities conclude this way, and this is the prevailing custom. Practically, any special haftarah that can push off “Hashamayim Kisi,” would certainly also push off “Machar Chodesh,” including “Hashamayim Kisi” itself. See Rema (O.C. 425:2; citing precedence from the Maharil’s Sefer Minhagim, Chilukei Haftaros),Levush (ad loc. 3),andAruch Hashulchan (ad loc. 4 and 5). Nonetheless, there is a minority opinion of the Mordechai (ibid.; also cited in the Beis Yosef ibid.) who when citing both sides of this debate, maintains that potentially, both Kriyos, “HaShamayim Kisi” and “Machar Chodesh” should push off “Aniyah So’arah”, as there is a hashlamah available two weeks later. As recently pointed out to this author by R’ Dovid Roth and R’ Sidney Strauss, this is the Minhag Frankfurt as well, as per Rav Yosef Yuzpa Haan in his Yosef Ometz (519). And although his descendant Rav Yosef Yuzpa Koschmann in his Noheg K’Tzon Yosef (Minhag Frankfurt; Re’eh, 1 pg. 254) argues that this is not entirely accurate, maintaining that this only holds true regarding “HaShamayim Kisi” and not “Machar Chodesh”, nonetheless, common Minhag Frankfurt, as per the Heidenheim Chumash (Haftarah Re’eh) and Rav Joseph Breuer zt”l’s Minhagei Yeshurun (pg. 44), seems to be that “Machar Chodesh” trumps “Aniyah So’arah” as well.

[15] For more on the topic of the halachic feasibility of combining two haftaros of the ‘Shiva D’Nechemta,’ see Terumas Hadeshen (vol. 2, Psakim U’Ksavim 94) and Shu”t Tzemach Tzedek (126).

[16] Although the Abudraham (ibid.;as well as the Levush O.C. 428: 8) famously writes (“b’derech tzachos”) that the order of the ‘Shiva D’Nechemta’ is such that the haftaros serve as a sort-of a back-and-forth conversation between Hashem and Klal Yisrael, as to whether they will accept consolation after the devastation of Tisha B’Av, and hence placing one of them out of order would seemingly upset this seder, as pointed out by R’ Avraham Yitzchak Tzuriel, it may not actually do so. The haftarah of Parashas Eikev is “V’tomer Tzion Azavani Hashem” (Yeshaya Ch. 49: 14), with Hashem “replying” by Parashas Shoftim “Anochi, Anochi Hu Menachmechem” (Yeshaya Ch. 51: 12). Yet, Shabbos Rosh Chodesh’s “Hashamayim Kisi” (read along with Parashas Re’eh, a week prior to Shoftim) not only offers consolation, but contains the passuk (Yeshaya Ch. 66: 13) “K’ish Asher Imo Tenachmeinu, Kein Anochi Enachemchem U’vYerushalayim Tenuchamu”, that Hashem will personally console Klal Yisrael and Yerushalayim, similar to one’s mother offering consolation. Hence, even with “Hashamayim Kisi” placed in the middle of the ‘Shiva D’Nechemta,’ at its point of insertion it would still fit right in with the “conversation” between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.

[17] Including the Levush (Orach Chaim 425: 2 and 581: 1), Matteh Efraim (581: 5), Sha’arei Efraim (Sha’ar 9: 23), Magen Avrohom (425: 1), Machatzis Hashekel (ad loc.), Ba’er Heitiv (425: 2), Derech Hachaim (Sha’ar Hakollel 8), Shulchan Atzei Shittim (Krias HaTorah 6), Chayei Adam (vol. 2, 118: 16), Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (128: 4), Mishnah Berurah (425: 7), Luach Eretz Yisroel (5775 and 5776, Elul, Parashas Ki Seitzei), and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin’s Ezras Torah Luach (5775 and 5776, Elul, Shabbos Parashas Re’eh s.v. Shacharis and Parashas Ki Seitzei). See also Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 425: 5 and 428: 7) and Shu”t Minchas Chein (vol. 2, Orach Chaim 23).

[18] In many Sefardic congregations, on Parashas Re’eh the first and last pasuk of “HaShamayim Kisi” is still read (as well as the first and last pasuk of “Machar Chodesh” if applicable), as otherwise, they would not have read it at all this time around. See Rav Mordechai Eliyahu’s Darchei Halacha glosses to the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (128: 4) and Yalkut Yosef (ibid.) who cite such a minhag, in order to at least catch some of “HaShamayim Kisi” (and “Machar Chodesh”). For Ashkenazim who end up reading both haftaros, there is no need to do so.

[19] According to Rabbi Dovid Heber of the Star-K and author of Shaarei Zemanim and The Intriguing World of Jewish Time, for most Ashkenazic Kehillos this double haftarah is actually read 70 times in the Tur’s (Orach Chaim end 428) 247 year cycle, making it overall not that uncommon. In fact, with the similar calendar setup of 5775/2015 and 5776/2016, as well as 5778/2018 and 5779/2019, this actually occurred recently in back-to-back years, or 4 years out of 5, making it a contemporary twice-doubled double haftara. This year, 5782/2022 also occurring puts it occurring at five times in the last eight years.

[20] There actually is another possible double-header haftara, which actually can occur pretty often, in many leap years. In non-leap years, Parashas Vayakhel and Parashas Pekudei are generally read as a double parasha, and as they fall out as one of the ‘Arba Parshiyos’ their haftarah is whichever of the special ones it may be (usually Parah or HaChodesh). Yet, in a leap year, they are read separately, and then due to inherent ‘skip weeks’ built into the system (as detailed at length in an article titled ‘Configuring the Arba Parshiyos Puzzle’), Parashas Pekudei is often a skip week. So then the question is which haftarah should be leined? Sefardic minhag, based on the Rambam (Seder HaTefillos, Haftaros) and Abudraham (Seder Parshiyos V’Haftaros) is to lein “Vayaas Chiram” (Melachim I, Ch. 7: 40-50), discussing the building of the Beis HaMikdash; an apt complementary haftarah for the building of the Mishkan detailed in the Parshiyos Hashavua. Yet, Ashkenazic minhag is for that haftarah to be leined for when Vayakhel is read by itself in a skip week. When Pekudei is read by itself, the following haftarah, “Vatishlam” (Melachim I, Ch. 7: 51) is deemed the proper one. [See Ohr Zarua (393), Leket Yosher (vol. 1, pg. 153), Rokeach (635), Levush (Orach Chaim 685), Noheg K’Tzon Yosef (pg. 206), Darchei Chaim V’Shalom (480), and of course, Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin’s essential Ezras Torah Luach (5776, Adar II Parashas Pekudei).] Yet, there is a minority opinion, that of the Maharil (Hilchos Arba Parshiyos, 5) [also cited by the Malbushei Yom Tov (Orach Chaim 685: 5) and Elyah Rabba (ad loc. 23)], that as “Vatishlam” is already leined as the haftarah of Yom Tov Sheini of Sukkos, albeit minus the first two pesukim, and if we lein it here, then “Vayaas Chiram” will not have been leined the whole year (as in this calendarical setup, Vayakhel was Shekalim, and hence its haftarah was trumped; the only other time it can get leined is when there is a second Shabbos Chanuka), accordingly, it would therefore be prudent to instead lein for Pekudei “Vayaas Chiram” along with the first two pesukim of “Vatishlam.” Although this shittah does not seem to be the common minhag, it nonetheless gave rise to a third minhag. As reported in the Ittim L’vina Luach (5779, Parashas Pekudei), the Rabbanim of Yerushalayim in the late 1800s, Rav Shmuel Salant and the Aderes, held that it would be proper to read both haftaros, as they actually are in direct succession. As explained in the Tukachinsky Luach Eretz Yisrael (5776, Adar II, Parashas Pekudei; and in his Sefer Eretz Yisrael Ch. 16: 1), since there is no Yom Tov Sheini of Sukkos observed in Eretz Yisrael, “Vatishlam,” would otherwise not have been read. So, in a compromise solution to fulfill both shittos, both haftaros should be read. The Ittim L’vina Luach continues that this was also the opinion of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Chaim Kanievsky. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman qualified his shittah (Halichos Shlomo, Moadim vol. 1, Ch. 17: 9) – that if in a leap year there are two Shabbosei Chanuka, as “Vayaas Chiram” would have already been leined on the second one, Parashas Pekudei’s haftarah would only be “Vatishlam”, as it was already leined that year. However, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv did not approve of this change, as the ikar minhag Ashkenaz for generations was exclusively to lein “Vatishlam” in this scenario, yet concluded that if one wanted to lein both he may. Rav Yisrael Yaakov Fischer, on the other hand, is quoted (Halichos Even Yisrael, Moadim vol. 2, pg. 404: 6) that the ikar should be to lein only “Vayaas Chiram” (unless there was a second Shabbos Chanuka that year), but concluded similarly that if one wanted to lein both haftaros, he certainly may. Interestingly, the Belz Dvar Yom B’Yomo Luach (5779, Adar II, Pekudei) writes to lein both haftaros as well, albeit for a different reason: any time there is a haftarah dispute and both haftaros are in the same sefer, then both should be read. Thanks are due to R’ Shloime Lerner for pointing out several of these mareh mekomos.

[21] Interestingly, there is potential for another double-header haftarah. However, this one does not share the same level of support as the one caused by Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Elul, nor the one on Pekudei. This second double-header has the potential to occur when Rosh Chodesh Av falls on Shabbos. As this Shabbos is always in the Tlas D’Paranusa, as mentioned previously, the Abudraham (ibid.), and Sefardic psak, is certainly that its regular haftarah of the Three Weeks, ‘Shim’u’ is read. Indeed, even the Rema, in his Darchei Moshe (Orach Chaim 425: 3), concurs, citing precedent from the Abudraham, Mordechai, Maharil, Sefer HaMinhagim, and Beis Yosef (ibid.), and not like the Terumas Hadeshen (19) and adding that in this case, although ‘Shim’u’ is read, it is proper to add the first and last pesukim of ‘HaShamayim Kisi’. Yet, in his authoritative Hagahah on the Shulchan Aruch, he changes his psak, concluding that the ikar on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Av follows the Terumas Hadeshen (ibid.) and Hagahos Maimoniyus (Hilchos Tefilla Ch. 13:2) [who hold that since this is essentially a Machlokes HaKadmonim, and a seeming stira in Tosafos (Pesachim 40b s.v. aval vs. Megillah 31b s.v. Rosh Chodesh; that when Rosh Chodesh Av falls out on Shabbos “Chodsheichem U’Moadeichem” (Yeshaya Ch. 1:14; referring to the haftarah of “Chazon”) is read] and therefore as Shabbos Rosh Chodesh is considered Tadir, more common, that in a place where there is no set minhag, ‘HaShamayim Kisi’ should be read. To make matters more intriguing, most later Ashkenazic authorities, including the Levush (ad loc. 2; although he also cites the opposing shittah, concluding “puk chazi mah ama davar”), Gr”a (Biur HaGr”a ad loc. s.v. v’yeish omrim HaShamayim; maintaining that there is a printing mistake in the Tosafos in Pesachim that states “Hashamayim Kisi” should be read), Elyah Rabba (Orach Chaim 549: 3), Dagul Mervava (Orach Chaim 425: 1), Shaarei Teshuva (ad loc. 1), and Mishnah Berurah (ad loc. 8), follow the Shulchan Aruch, and not the Rema’s conclusion, that on Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Av, ‘Shim’u’ should be read. This is also a divergence of minhag between the cities of Prague (‘Shim’u’) and Posen (‘HaShamayim Kisi’), and several Poskim conclude that whichever of the two haftaros is read is fine. [See Levush (O.C. 425:2; concluding “puk chazi mah ama davar” and in O.C. 549: end 1, “b’makom shenahagu nahagu”), Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (122:6), Kaf Hachaim (O.C. 425:16; “u’mikol makom b’makom shenahagu ain leshanos”), and Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin’s authoritative Ezras Torah Luach (5781; Parashas Mattos-Masei; after citing both shittos concludes “v’ain leshanos haminhag”). Lemaaseh, the Rema’s conclusion is that both are essentially valid shittos.]Yet, practically, already in the Levush’s time (O.C. 549:1 s.v. Rosh Chodesh Av) “nohagin b’rov hamekomos lehaftir Shimu v’lo Hashamayim Kisi,”and the majority consensus seems to be that the minhag to read “Shim’u” is the most prevalent, following the Mishnah Berurah’s citing of the Vilna Gaon’s position as the final word on the matter. For more on this subject, see previous article titled “Of Haftaros and Havdalah: Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Av 5781.”

However, there are those who opine, based on the Ashkenazic psak regarding Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Elul, that there is a solution available to satisfy all opinions. As noted by Rav Noach Isaac Oelbaum in his Shu”t Minchas Chein (vol. 2, Orach Chaim 23), citing the sefer Pischei Olam U’Mataamei Hashulchan (on the Shulchan Aruch ad loc.), Shulchan Atzei Shittim (on the Shulchan Aruch ad loc.), and Shulchan HaKriah (on Hilchos Krias HaTorah), that the haftaros of the first two of three of the Tlas D’Paranusa (‘Divrei Yirmiyahu’ and ‘Shim’u’) are actually back to back in the original Navi (Yirmiyahu Ch. 1: 1–2: 3 and 2: 428). As such, they opine that when Rosh Chodesh Av falls on Shabbos, on the preceding week, the first of the Tlas D’Paranusa, both ‘Divrei Yirmiyahu’ and ‘Shim’u’ should be read, thus freeing up the next week for the regular Shabbos Rosh Chodesh reading of HaShamayim Kisi. Although a bit of a novel approach, nonetheless, in this manner, all opinions are satisfied and all necessary Kriyos are read. Rav Oelbaum concludes that in 5765/2005, there was a ‘Kol Koreh’ M’Gedolei Rabbanim, that this is the preferred mehalech to follow when Rosh Chodesh Av falls out on Shabbos. So although as opposed to Shabbos Rosh Chodesh Elul, this may not (yet) be the mainstream Ashkenazic psak, nevertheless, this potential third double-header haftarah certainly has merit. Thanks are due to R’ Mordechai Fast for first pointing this out to this author.