Except during leap year, the reading of Mishpatim generally coincides with the special maftir of Parshat Shekalim. As such, with rare exception, the haftorah for Parshat Mishpatim is replaced by that for the maftir of Shekalim. This year neither of these haftorahs will be read and instead we will hear the haftorah for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh. Some would say that the latter two haftorahs are thematically distinct and both unrelated to Mishpatim. Yet, upon closer examination this is not the case.

The haftorah for Mishpatim comes from Yirmiyahu. The people of Israel, while under threat of foreign invasion, freed their slaves in accord with the instructions contained in this week’s parsha. After the threat passed, they showed their disingenuous nature by going forth and recapturing those slaves.

The haftorah for Shekalim takes place during the reign of King Jehoash. Although this haftorah may not actually involve in the mitzvah of the half shekel, it does concern donations for the Beit Hamikdash which was in disrepair. Ultimately the king commanded placing a donation box next to the mizbeach, altar. According to some, another was placed at the entrance to the Beit Hamikdash. The funds collected in these boxes were used for repair and maintenance of Hashem’s house. Prior to this, the king attempted a different, unsuccessful, approach.

King Jehoash’s original approach was to have the Kohanim accept donations from the people for the sanctuary’s repair. There is a difference of opinion as to what then transpired. Some suggest that the Kohanim refused this undertaking. These Kohanim thought it wrong to solicit donations when such donations should be voluntary. Another opinion holds that the Kohanim requested contributions, but these solicitations were less than successful. This resulted in the Kohanim using their personal funds to effect the necessary repairs. Their personal funds proved insufficient and hence so were the repairs. The most distressing opinion is that the Kohanim collected funds but kept them for themselves. It is quite possible that all these opinions are correct with multiple Kohanim factions each acting differently. It is, however, that final, troubling, opinion that forges the link with the parsha.

The seemingly noble acts of freeing slaves and collecting funds for the House of God, are undermined by the underlying illicit motivations. In both haftorahs the true motivations were self-interest. In the haftorah for Mishpatim it was a false display of piety. In the haftorah for Shekalim it was the avaricious misappropriation of funds. This unpleasant reality provides a link to Mishpatim. So also, the haftorah for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh.

The haftorah for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh comes from Yeshayahu 66:1-24. In its third verse the prophet, speaking for Hashem, rails against

שׁוֹחֵ֨ט הַשּׁ֜וֹר מַכֵּה־אִ֗ישׁ זוֹבֵ֚חַ הַשֶּׂה֙ ע֣וֹרֵֽף כֶּ֔לֶב מַֽעֲלֵ֚ה מִנְחָה֙ דַּם־חֲזִ֔יר מַזְכִּ֥יר לְבֹנָ֖ה מְבָ֣רֵֽךְ אָ֑וֶן גַּם־הֵ֗מָּה בָּֽחֲרוּ֙ בְּדַרְכֵיהֶ֔ם וּבְשִׁקּֽוּצֵיהֶ֖ם נַפְשָׁ֥ם חָפֵֽצָה

“Whoever slaughters an ox has slain a man; he who slaughters a lamb is as though he beheads a dog; he who offers up a meal-offering is [like] swine blood; he who burns frankincense brings a gift of violence; they, too, chose their ways, and their soul desired their abominations.”

The commentaries explain that Hashem is upset that people are offering korbanot without the required intent. They offer a korban chatat, but do not regret the sin they committed that necessitated the korban. It is a physical act lacking the necessary emotional, intellectual and spiritual substance. The action is taken merely for show, to appear pious. Or worse, perhaps it is done with either the thought that Hashem will accept perfunctory acts, or with the thought that Hashem can be deceived.

Each of the haftorah contain disingenuous actions. The seemingly noble acts of freeing slaves, collecting funds for the House of God, and offering korbanot are undermined by the underlying illicit or vacuous motivations. In the haftorah for Mishpatim and Shabbot Rosh Chodesh it was a false display of piety. In the haftorah for Shekalim it was the avaricious misappropriation of funds. These unpleasant realities provide a link to Mishpatim.

At the end of Mispatim, we read: “And to the nobles of Bnei Yisroel He did not send forth his hand and they viewed the Lord and they ate and drank.” (24:11). On this verse Rashi explains that the nobles of Bnei Yisroel refers to Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, and the elders. Rashi goes on to explain that it was fitting for them to have been killed at that moment for eating and drinking while beholding the Shechina, the Divine presence. This midrash, at first glance, would seem to be in conflict with the opinions of Ramban and Rav Soloveitchik. Ramban says that just as a sacrifice could only be eaten in the holy precincts, such as Yerushalayim, so too the korban that the nobles offered had to be eaten then at that location. Similarly, Rav Soloveitchik states that it was proper to have a meal at that time as it coincided with the execution of a bris, a covenant. On closer examination there is no conflict, but there is a connection to the haftorah.

In all the haftorahs we have seemingly legitimate actions undermined by illegitimate motives. So also, in Mishpatim, did the nobility of Bnei Yisroel perform a proper act with an improper motive and thus incur divine punishment, albeit deferred. This punishment will not come until the incident at Tab’erah. (See Rashi on Bamidbar 11:16)

This warning, indeed, this fourfold warning, (the parsha and three haftorahs) is a most appropriate reminder and a caution for our daily life. Are we going to shul to speak to Hashem or to our friends? Are we there to hear Torah or for the kiddush? In the parsha we have the phrase “Na’aseh V’Nishma, We will do and we will listen,” or, “We will do and we will comprehend.” Better still that we do with comprehension and intent.

William S.J. Fraenkel received a Bachelors of Arts in Religion and a law degree from NYU and served as a Board member and officer of several orthodox shuls. The opinions expressed in this devar Torah are solely his own.