Jonah Leaves Us with Questions, So on Yom Kippur We End with Micah

In many cases, the chapter numbers of biblical texts, added to the Vulgate in the thirteenth century by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, reflect problematic divisions of a biblical book into sections. In the case of Jonah, he divided the book well: the book naturally falls into two parts, each of which has two scenes. See, e.g., Jonathan Magonet, “Jonah,” ABD 3.937.

I would like to thank Tony Nguyen, Julia O’Brien, and Stefan Reif for their help with this essay.

Since classical rabbinic texts are earlier than the introduction of chapter numbers (see the previous note), the rabbis (and later the masoretes, in their masoretic notes) indicate passages by their first words.

Translation mine.

See Avigdor Shinan and Yair Zakovitch, The Book of Jonah: A New Israeli Commentary (Tel Aviv: Yedioth Books, 2015; Hebrew), 18.

See also discussion in b. Yoma 69b.

I would like to express my appreciation to Zev Farber for agreeing to write this appendix. His careful editing and his superlative knowledge of both biblical and rabbinic sources enhance every article that TheTorah.com publishes.

As far as I can find, this phrase is just Abravanel’s, and he uses it only here. Abravanel’s view that a specific body instituted all the haftarot, including things like additional verses, is unlikely to be historically accurate. Instead, the different prophetic readings probably developed based on local, popular customs. Thus, instead of speaking of central authorities who established them, we should think in terms of local authorities who codified customs when they compiled prayerbooks, legal guides, or collections of customs.

Jack Sasson (“Jonah Struggles with God’s Compassion,” TheTorah, 2023) suggests that: “The verses from Micah reinforce the sentiments attributed to Jonah without raising any of the potentially troubling follow-ups …. Incomparable grace, they insist, is forever there to be had even by the most obdurate offenders.” The recently published Anchor Bible commentary by Graybill, Kaltner and McKenzie (Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYBC 24H [New Haven; London: University Press, 2023, 66], proffers a slightly different type of correction, namely that the added verses “provid[e] a counterbalance to the compassion for Nineveh with which Jonah ends.” Perhaps by “counterbalance” they are suggesting that later readers found problematic the emphasis on forgiveness to the Assyrians given that they destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 722.

Many scholars see much or all of Micah’s final chapter as a liturgy; see, e.g., Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah, FOTL 24B (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 171; Julia M. O’Brien, Micah, Wisdom 37, ed. Carol J. Dempsey and Barbara E. Reid (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015), 46–68; and James Nogalski, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea through Jonah (Macon, GA: Smith and Helwys, 2011), 585: “Micah 7:8-20 . . . is a late composition that is intended to be read as a prophetic liturgy set in the time of Hezekiah at the end of the eighth century, but whose message anticipates the fate of Judah over the seventh century.”

The unsatisfactory nature of the book’s ending is noted, e.g., in Graybill, Kaltner and McKenzie, Jonah, 292–296 and Yael Shemesh, “‘And Many Beasts’ (Jonah 4:11): The Function and Status of Animals in the Book of Jonah,” JHebS 10/6 (2010), https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2010.v10.a6.

In several other verses (Zech 10:11; Job 41:23; Neh 9:11) these two words are more loosely juxtaposed.

This imagery is the reason these verses are used as part of Rosh Hashanah’s Tashlich service, when we go to a body of water and enact a tossing of sins into the water ritual.

On the change of the meaning of shuv from the biblical to the rabbinic period, see David A. Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical: Judaism, Christianity, and the Interpretation of Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), and https://www.thetorah.com/article/teshuva-and-returning-to-the-lord-are-they-one-and-the-same.

See the discussion in Delbert R. Hillers, Micah: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Micah, Hermeneia, ed. Paul D. Hanson and Loren Fisher (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 88 n. t; and note the emendation in HALOT, s.v. כבשׁ.

Note the contrast to the depiction of Jonah in 2 Kings 14:25, where he speaks only to Northern Israel.

These are common enough that biblical scholars have even created an abbreviation for them (OANs). For more on OANs, see M. Daniel Carroll R., “Excursus: An Introduction to the Oracles against the Nations,” in The Book of Amos, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 125-138; see also John Barton, Amos’s Oracles against the Nations, Society for Old Testament Study 6 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press), 1980.

Another minor prophet, Nahum, is entirely comprised of prophecies against Nineveh, like Jonah—but nothing in Nahum suggests that he, like Jonah, traveled to Assyria. I am speaking from the perspective of the book; following the perspective of most scholars, I do not read Jonah as recounting actual history, and do not mean to suggest that a real prophet named Jonah traveled to Assyria to deliver his short prophecy, after being waylaid by a big fish.

On this expression, see James L. Crenshaw, Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYBC 24C (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 60.

The first is the favored Priesty (P) solution and the second, that of the Deuteronomistic school. This division into P vs. D + prophecy is overly schematic, and obscures many nuances, but will suffice for our purposes. For a more comprehensive treatment of repentance and the Bible (both Jewish and Christian), see Lambert, How Repentance Became Biblical.

See Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy [Devarim]: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, JPS Torah Commentary series (Philadelphia: JPS, 1996), 283, and more broadly on this passage, see Marc Zvi Brettler, “Is Israel’s Repentance a Foregone Conclusion?” TheTorah (2016).

See Sung Jin Park, The Fundamentals of Hebrew Accents: Divisions and Exegetical Roles Beyond Syntax (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

This is one of many cases where the cantillation marks reflect early interpretations that diverge from the expected syntax. See, Simcha Kogut, המקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות בחינה לשונית ועניינית של זיקות ומחלוקות בין פרשנות הטעמים לפרשנות מסורתית [Correlations Between Biblical Accentuation and Traditional Jewish Exegesis Linguistic and Contextual Studies] (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994). It is striking that the cantillation marks of the similar Joel 2:14 are not adjusted in the same manner.

The Aramaic and English texts are from Accordance.

See Alan Cooper, “In Praise of Divine Caprice: The Significance of the Book of Jonah,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1993), 163.

Precisely how these verses may pick up on and rework Exod 34:6-7 is much more complex than usually posited; it is likely that many different forms of YHWH’s attributes circulated in ancient Israel, and that (the late) text in Exod 34 has not been reworked by Jonah and Micah.

Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYBC 18B (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 653.

The proper English translation of ḥesed is fraught, but for our purposes, “steadfast love” will do. On ḥesed, see Marc Zvi Brettler, “Praise YHWH All You Nations: Psalm 117,” TheTorah (2020), esp. n. 10.

The text appears in Judah David Eisenstein, אוצר מדרשים [Ozar Midrashim] (New York, 1915), 222. Eisenstein describes the source (p. 221) as קובץ מדרשים קטנים מכ"י די רוסי “a collection of small midrashim from the De Rossi manuscript.”

For similar translations, see the NRSVUE, the KJV, and Robert Alter’s translation (The Hebrew Bible, 1298): “And I, shall I not have pity for Nineveh the great city, in which there are many more than one hundred twenty thousand human beings who do know between their right hand and their left, and many beasts?”

It is certainly legitimate to render it as such. While Hebrew has an interrogative particle, heh, it does not need to use it to pose a question. See the discussion in Marc Zvi Brettler, “Psalm 116—Is the Death of the Righteous Person Precious in the Eyes of YHWH?” TheTorah (2021), esp. n 35.

The קִיקָיוֹן plant cannot be identified with certainty; see the helpful analysis in Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation, AYBC 24B (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 291–292, with literature there.

Alan Cooper, “In Praise of Divine Caprice: The Significance of the Book of Jonah,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, LHBOTS 144, ed. Philip R. Davies, David J. A. Clines (London: Bloomsbury, 2009), 144–163. I do not find the attempted rebuttal of his position (adopted by others) by Graybill, Kaltner and McKenzie, Jonah, 296–298, to be successful.

See also, e.g., the comments of Uriel Simon, Jonah: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation, translated from the Hebrew by Lenn J. Schramm, JPS Bible Commentary series (Philadelphia: JPS, 1999), 45: “The antiparallelism between the two elements of the a fortiori argument is less than perfect.” Thus, Cooper writes (157, 158), “The Book of Jonah itself gives no grounds for choosing between the interrogative and declarative renderings of 4.11, since it simply ends here.”

Cooper, 150.

Cooper explains (p. 163):

Again, as in Jonah, the focus is on the meaning of the divine attributes of rab ḥesed we’^emet. Jonah (the character) intimates that insofar as God allows his ḥesed to alter his course of action, he is not a God of ’^emet. Micah, like the author of the Book of Jonah, recognizes divine caprice as a boon for Israel. God annuls Israel’s punishment entirely out of ḥesed; neither repentance nor acts of expiation are required (Mich. 7.18). God simply tosses Israel’s sins into the sea, Mich 7.19 explicitly alluding to Jon. 2.4. And God’s love is not at odds with his truth. Rather, ’^emet and ḥesed are one and the same thing; thus the parallelism of Mic. 7.20.

Cooper does not specifically deal with Micah 7:18-20 as an addition to Jonah on Yom Kippur, but is an explanation for the verses themselves, i.e., that they were written in response to Jonah. I do not necessarily accept Cooper’s analysis on this point, that Micah corrects Jonah, as I am unsure of the relative dating of the passages. Jonah is post-exilic. Micah is a composite work; scholars debate its layers and their dates of composition, though many see its concluding verses as post-exilic. Therefore, I see no way to determine which of these verses is later. But I do think what Cooper notes about the verses explains very well the custom of adding them at the end of Jonah on Yom Kippur.

Ezra Zion Melamed, “Break-up of Stereotype Phrases as an Artistic Device in Biblical Poetry,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 8 (1961): 115–153 [p.128].

See Hans-Jürgen Zobel, “חֶ֫סֶד,” TDOT 5.48–51; 57; Alfred Jepsen, “אֱמֶת,” TDOT 1.310, 312, 314–315, Johanna W. H. van Wijk-Bos, Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2005), 255–256; Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, “On Translating the Praisings,” in Scripture and Translation, trans. Lawrence Rosenwald and Everett Fox (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994), 93; and Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 17 (Missoula: Scholars, 1978).

See Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, vol. 1, translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1975), 496–508 (=Heb 439–451). Many of the relevant sources can be found at Sefaria. For more on ancestral merit in rabbinic thought, see Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Merit in Ancient Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), esp. 177–181; and Sarit Kattan Gribetz, “Zekhut Imahot: Mothers, Fathers, and Ancestral Merit in Rabbinic Sources,” JSJ 49 (2018): 263–296; and x-ref https://www.thetorah.com/article/abrahams-prayer-and-ours-a-yom-kippur-illustration

It is crucial to note, however, that the two notions are not identical. The biblical view looks back to YHWH and His covenant with the ancestors, while the rabbinic view looks at the good deeds performed by the ancestors themselves.

On this, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYBC 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2334; note that the orders of the patriarchs are reversed in Micah—might this be a case of Seidel’s law, where a reversal of elements suggests that Micah here is quoting Lev 26?

Milgrom, ibid.

It continues in the Italian rite; see Samuel David Luzzatto, מבוא למחזור בני רומא [An Introduction to the Mahzor of the Italians], eds., Daniel Goldschmidt and J. Joseph Cohen (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1966 [orig. Livorno, 1856]), 97.

I quote here from the critical edition edited by Yehonatan Etz-Chaim הלכות פסוקות השלם [The Complete Hilkhot Pesukot] (Mossad HaRav Kook, 2018), 4.114. See also on p. 454 of the standard, Ahavat Shalom edition.

It reads:

^{סדר רב עמרם גאון (הרפנס), מנחה של יום הכיפורים} ובמנחה מוציאין ס"ת, וקורין ג' כמעשה ארץ מצרים עד קדושים תהיו, ומפטיר ועלו מושיעים, ונבואת יונה, ומי אל כמוך.

^{Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Harpenes ed.), Mincha of Yom Kippur} During mincha, they bring out the Torah scroll, and three people read from “Like the ways of Egypt” (Lev 18) until “Be holy” (Lev 19). And then the haftara reading from “and liberators march up” (Obad 1:21), and the prophecy of Jonah, and then “who is a God like you?” (Mic 7:18).

P. 371. Notably, Maimonides also mentions only Jonah, so it is possible that Saʿadiah here is reflecting Egyptian practice in his siddur rather than that of Sura.

The same approach is taken by the Tanya Rabbati, attributed to Jehiel ben Jekuthiel Anav, a younger relative of R. Zedekiah, who used the Shibbolei HaLeket extensively in his own work.

^{תניא רבתי סימן פא} ומפטיר בתרי עשר בנבואת יונה, ומתחיל ועלו מושיעים בסוף נבואת עובדיה. ומסיים מי אל כמוך בסוף נבואת מיכה, ואף על גב דאמרינן אין מדלגין מנביא לנביא. הא קיימא לן דבנביאים של ת"ע מדלגין מנביא לנביא.

^{Tanya Rabbati §81} And the haftara comes from the book of the twelve, the prophecy of Jonah. It begins with “and liberators march up” (Obad 1:21) at the end of the prophecy of Obadiah, and it ends with “who is a God like you?” at the end of the prophecy of Micah. And even though we say “one cannot skip from prophet to prophet” have we not established that in the prophecies of the twelve, one can skip from prophet to prophet.

It also appears in Sefer HaManhig, by R. Abraham ben Nathan HaYarhi of Lunel (12th cent.):

^{ספר המנהיג צום כיפור עמוד שנד} וקורין ג' בעריות, ומפטי' ועלו מושיעי' ונבואת יונה שמדבר על התשובה, ומי אל כמוך כו', ושלישי הקורא הוא המפטיר, ומברך לפניה ולאחרי' כל הברכו' כדרך שחרית. יסוד העמרמי.

^{Sefer HaManhig Fast of Yom Kippur p. 354} They read three aliyot from the laws of forbidden sex (Lev 18), and the haftara is “and liberators march up” (Obad 1:21), and the prophecy of Jonah, which speaks of repentance, and “who is a God like you?” (Mic 7:18). It is the third Torah reader that reads the haftara… from the foundations of the Amramite (=Siddur Rav Amram Gaon).

This is also what Maimonides say in his Mishneh Torah (Book of Ahava, Laws of Prayer, 13:11), showing that the Geonic custom was not ubiquitous among all Sephardic communities.

Here are several examples:

^{מנהגות וורמייזא לרבי יודא ליוא קירכום סדר ההפטרות} יה"כ למנחה ביונה סימן א' "ויהי דבר י"י אל יונה" עד "ובהמה רבה."

^{Minhagot of Worms, R. Judah Liva Kirchheim, Haftarot} Yom Kippur for mincha: From Jonah, part one “And the word of the LORD came to Jonah…” until “and many beasts.”

^{מנהגים דק"ק וורמיישא ש"ה פרשיות ליום כיפור} ומפטירין ביונה סימן א' "ויהי דבר יי אל יונה" עד "ובהמה רבה."

^{Minhagim of the Holy Congregation of Worms, §305, Parashiyot for Yom Kippur} Yom Kippur for mincha: From Jonah, part one “And the word of the LORD came to Jonah…” until “and many beasts.”

^{ספר המנהגים לר' אייזיק טירנא יום הכיפורים} ויפטיר ביונה שמיירי בתשובה שמכפרת.

^{Sefer HaMinhagim of R. Izik Tirna Yom HaKippurim} And he recites the haftara from Jonah, because it deals with repentance which atones.

^{ספר המנהגים לר"א קלויזנר יום כיפור} הגה: למנחה מפטיר ביונה בן אמיתי שהוא מעניני תשובה – עכ"ל מרדכי.

^{Sefer HaMinhagim of R. Abraham Klausner Yom Kippur} Gloss: “For mincha, the haftara is from Jonah son of Amitai, which deals with issues of repentance.” A quote from Mordechai.

^{מנהגי מהרי"ל הלכות תפילת מנחה דיום כפור} ומפטיר נבואת יונה "ויהי דבר ה'."

^{Minhagim of Maharil Mincha of Yom Kippur} And the haftara is the prophecy of Jonah, “And the word of the LORD…”

The topic of translated readings is also discussed by R. Elijan ben Haim (Raʾanach) in Responsa Mayim Amukim 2:73, but not this particular example.

R. Chaim Benveniste (1603–1673) of Constantinople writes about the custom of reading the Micah verses on Yom Kippur. The context is explaining why both Sephardim and Ashkenazim add these verses at the end of the haftara of Shabbat Shuvah (the Shabbat between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur), which he argues is not just because the haftara is short:

^{שיירי כנסת הגדולה הגהות טור אורח חיים סימן רפד} והראיה שאפילו בהפטרת ויהי דבר ה' אל יונה בן אמתי שאנו מפטירין בכפור במנחה, אף על פי שהיא ארוכה, אנו מדלגין לסוף מיכה וקורין ג' פסוקים הללו.

^{Shayari Knesset HaGedolah OḤ 282} And the proof is that even in the haftara of “and the word of the LORD came to Jonah son of Amitai” that we read as the haftara of Yom Kippur, even though it is long, we skip to the end of Micah and read these last three verses.

He is most famous for his commentary on Aggada known as Etz Yosef. The commentaries on the siddur were first published in the compendium on prayer Otzar HaTefilot, and this part of the commentary is titled either Besamim Rosh or Roshei Besamim. (This comment appears in volume 2, page 1147.)