The Commandment of Hakhel
Rabbi Ari D. Kahn
Over a hundred years ago* in Warsaw a small pamphlet was published
entitled Zecher L'Mikdash' [1]
(A Remembrance of the Temple), containing "explanations of the
mitzvat Hakhel, one of
the commandments of the Torah commanded to us by Moshe Rabbenu, may he rest in
peace." The pamphlet was published anonymously,[2]
and Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz Te'omim — "The Aderet" — is credited
with its authorship.[3] Since that time, a plethora of works have
emerged on the topic, which have contributed to a symbolic performance of this mitzva
in our time. In the following pages I will deal with a few of the issues
involved in the mitzva of Hakhel, noting some points of particular interest.
The Torah, in Deuteronomy, commands us to gather — Hakhel —
at the end of the sabbatical year, for a public reading of selected biblical
portions:
Assemble (hakhel) the nation, men, women and children and the proselyte
in your midst, in order that they may hear and that they may learn and fear the
Lord your God and safeguard to perform all the words of this Torah[4]
Before us is an attempt to bring about intellectual, emotional and,
perhaps most important, practical results from this mass gathering. Although it
would be difficult to emphasize one of these aspects over the others, different
commentators hone in on what they feel is the ultimate desired effect of the
Mitzva. Some see the learning as the most important aspect, while others see
the goal as instilling the fear of God in the participants.[5]
In fact, when considering what verses were actually read and the frequency of
the event, it is difficult to understand
Hakhel in terms of Talmud torah (a learning experience per
se).[6]
The Rambam (Maimonides) describes Hakhel as a "reenactment" of the
Sinaitic revelation.[7]
At first glance, this seems to focus on the talmud torah aspect
of Hakhel, but, as we shall see, the Rambam's view is a bit more complex than
this explanation would suggest.
Hakhel and the Sabbatical Year
In order to fully understand the Hakhel ceremony one must understand the
context in which it was observed, namely, in relationship to the sabbatical
year. Avraham lbn Ezra views Hakhel (which he claims occurs at the start of the
Sabbatical year, rather than at its close) as an emotional "pep talk"
to encourage the nation not to sit idle intellectually as well as physically
during the Sabbatical year. Rather, the Hakhel ceremony was intended, in lbn
Ezra's view, to encourage the people to utilize the year to pursue talmud
torah and fearing God.[8]
While Nachmanides, (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman,
Ramban) disagrees as to the timing of the Hakhel ceremony, placing it at the
end of the Sabbatical year,[9]
as do all of the Talmudic sources.[10]
He agrees with lbn Ezra as to the purpose of Hakhel. This seems somewhat
problematic, as such a gathering is more logically timed at the start of the
Sabbatical year, making the Ramban's "compromise" stance somewhat
less tenable.
Rabbi Dovid Zvi
Hoffman[11]
also takes the Sabbatical year into account and explains that during the other
years of the seven-year cycle the Jews would enter Jerusalem at the close of
the harvest season to offer prayers and sacrifices of thanksgiving for the
produce of that year. On this the seventh or Sabbatical year, people would naturally
sense the marked difference of the lack of harvest through their own physical
toil, but would feel compelled to thank God for sustaining them as per the
Biblical promise:
Then I will
command My blessing upon you in the sixth year and it will make its produce for
the three years (the sixth year, the seventh or Sabbatical year, and the eighth
or residual year).[12]
The image of God sustaining the People of
Israel in such a fashion no doubt brings to mind the relationship of God and
Israel in the desert, when they were sustained by the manna. This "return
to the desert" may now set the stage for the quasi-Sinaitic experience
known as Hakhel, in the hope that the people will accept the Torah a new at the
end of every seven-year cycle. R. Hoffman here alludes to the description of
Hakhel found in Hagiga Chapter 3 Halakha 6 in the Rambam:
As for proselytes
who do not know the Law, they must make ready their heart and give ear with
their ears to hearken in awe and reverence and trembling joy as on the day when
the Law was given on Sinai. Even great scholars who know the entire Law must
listen with utmost attention. Even if there is any who cannot hear, he should
keep his heart intent on this reading for Scripture has
ordained it solely
for the strengthening of true
religion and a man should so regard himself as though the Law was now layed
upon him for the first time and as though he now heard it from the mouth of the
Lord. For the king is an ambassador to proclaim the words of God.
Rambam's View of Hakhel
The Rambam's depiction of Hakhel within
the context of revelation at Sinai is not without a few interesting problems.
The general association results from Rambam's exegesis of the biblical passages
in question. A close reading of the Torah's descriptions of Revelation and of
Hakhel reveal a number of similarities, the most significant for this
discussion being the use of the word "hakhel" (gather) in each context:
The day that you
stood before the Lord thy God in Horev, when the Lord said to me, 'Gather (hakhel)
me the people together and I will make them hear my words that they may learn
to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may
teach their children.[13]
This passage, in which the term
"hakhel" is used in a technical sense, discusses the giving of the
Torah. However, the specific phrase which Rambam uses in his description of Hakhel
is "borrowed" from a Talmudic discussion of a separate issue, dealing
with a person who was leaning on a pillar while acting as meturgeman (translator):
R. Shmuel the son
of Yitzchak saw him and said, 'As the Torah was given amid awe and fear (reverence),
we must also treat it with awe and fear”.[14]
Rambam is certainly aware of the proper
context of this discussion, for in the Laws of Prayer, where he discusses the
laws concerning reading the Torah, we find a discussion of this same case:
The turgeman
(translator) may not lean on a pillar nor beam, rather he must stand in awe and
fear (reverence). [15]
Of note is the different ways in which Rambam
treats the same source. In the Laws of Prayer, he codifies the law as stated,
while in the Laws of Festival Offering he goes somewhat further, citing
the theological significance of this law as well. My revered
Teacher Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik[16] addresses the connection between these two
passages in Rambam postulating that their common element is more than literary. Hakhel is seen as a paradigm of Kriy'at HaTorah
(public reading of the Torah). Rabbi Soloveitchik cites
the "famous" exposition of R. Elazar ben Azaryah regarding Hakhel:
If men come to
learn and women come to listen, why are children brought? To bring reward upon those
who bring them.[17]
Rabbi Soloveitchik
concludes that there exist two separate elements of the mitzva of Hakhel, the
first being studying talmud torah (which necessitates proper understanding
of the subject matter) and the second is listening (even when the person does
not fully comprehend what he hears). Similarly, Rabbi Soloveitchik points
to the existence of these two elements within Talmud Torah itself: the
primarily intellectual experience of learning Torah, whose subject matter can
include the entire Talmudic corpus of knowledge, and, on the other had, what
may be termed 'hearing the Word of God', which applies exclusively to the
Written Law, the Torah, which Rabbi Soloveitchik,
relying on the passage in the Rambam cited above (Hagiga, Chapter 3 Halakha 6),
insists must always be viewed as a re-experience of the Revelation at Sinai.
Proselytes and Hakhel in The Rambam
Another aspect of Rambam's formulation of
Hakhel and its relationship to the Sinaitic revelation we have yet to discuss
relates to the singular treatment of proselytes in the passage quoted above:
"As for proselytes who do not know the Law..." This formulation compels us to wonder why
Rambam singles out proselytes in observing the mitzva of Hakhel. Some
commentators do not deal with this question directly, but simply prefer to
avoid the problem altogether by altering the punctuation of the passage. The
section preceding ours, Halakha 5, reads:
The reading of
the Law and the benedictions must be in the Holy Language, as it is said, 'Thou
shalt read this law' — in its very language, even though foreign tongues are
spoken there.
Aderet, in a brief gloss,[18]
believes that the section which we have been treating, namely Halakha 6 dealing
with Hakhel and revelation, should begin with the words found at the end of
Halakha 5, "Even though foreign tongues are spoken there." On the
other hand, Rabbi Zevulun Zaks[19]
is of the opinion that the reference to proselytes in the first section of
Halakha 6 should actually be the end of Halakha 5, as it is a natural continuation
of the theme of "foreign tongues" This emendation would leave Halakha
6 without any reference to proselytes, and the exhortation to view Hakhel as
revelation would be a general one, directed to all of Israel.
Rabbi Alter Hilovitz[20]
also deals with the question of the proper punctuation of Halakhot 5 and 6 in
the Rambam, and notes that in original manuscripts of the Rambam, no numbers
dividing Halakhot appeared at all. His conclusion, however, concurs with that
of Rabbi Zaks, attaching the discussion of
proselytes to Halakha 5 and leaving the discussion of Hakhel as one directed equally
to all Jews.
Hakhel and Revelation: Other
Interpretations
In attempting to clarify the relationship
between Hakhel and Revelation, a direct analysis of the relevant sources is
lacking. Rather, scholars have attempted to treat this subject in light of
other sources in Rambam and elsewhere, drawing their conclusions from
comparison and logical inference which may or may not do justice to this
question per se. Two examples of such treatment are to be found in the writings
of Rabbi A. Hilovitz and Rabbi Shlomo Goren. Rabbi Hilovitz[21]
notes that in Sefer HaMitzvot, Ramban (Nachmanides) takes issue with Rambam on
the latter's failure to list "remembering Revelation at Sinai" as a positive
command.[22]
This, Rabbi Hilovitz suggests, is the reason why Rambam
mentions Revelation in his discussion of Hakhel: Hakhel is the fulfillment of
the command to "remember Revelation".
This, according to Rabbi
Hilovitz, also explains why in Sefer HaMitzvot, Hakhel is listed among the
positive commands to write a sefer Torah, mezuzah, and t'fillin[23]
rather than being listed among the laws of sacrifices, as it is in the Yad
HaHazakah. Rabbi Hilovitz concludes that there are two
aspects to the mitzva of Hakhel, one involving the "inner content" —
in the Yad, listed as part of the obligation of pilgrimage to Jerusalem — and
one of "external meaning", namely remembering the Revelation, as
reflected in the Sefer HaMitzvot.
Rabbi Hilovitz's
analysis is useful in several ways. Firstly, it addresses Ramban's apt question
on Rambam's "omission" of the obligation to remember Revelation. It further
addresses the discrepancy in listing the positive command of Hakhel in two
different contexts in Sefer HaMitzvot and in the Yad. However, the conclusions Rabbi
Hilovitz draws seem to oversimplify the problem. It would seem that, had Rambam
felt that Hakhel was indeed the fulfillment of the command to remember
Revelation, he would have stated as much in Sefer HaMitzvot.[24]
Rabbi Shlomo Goren
offers another explanation.[25]
His starting point is a different halakha in Rambam concerning Hakhel: "It
is a positive commandment to assemble (lehakhel) all Israelites, men, women and
children...".[26]
Numerous commentators have pointed out the peculiar syntax of this statement,
and they draw various conclusions regarding the burden of action implicit in
this command: On whom does the duty "to assemble" fall? Is this an
active command upon the king, the courts, or other leaders of the people?[27]
Rabbi Goren explains that since Hakhel is a reenactment
of Revelation — when the Jewish People ceased their tribal existence and became
a nation — the command of Hakhel is for each Jew to "gather himself".
The command is for every individual to assemble, not as an individual, but as
an integral part of the nation.
Rabbi Goren's
explanation goes far in clarifying the peculiarity in Rambam's syntax, and it
does so by making use of the idea of Revelation. However, this explanation does
not illuminate Rambam's view of Revelation itself or its relationship with the
Hakhel ceremony.
Rambam's View of Revelation
Without amending the text or punctuation,
the question remains as to why a convert receives special mention and is
required specifically to pay attention during the Hakhel ceremony. Although
Rambam concludes that all must view Hakhel as if the words being read emanate
directly from Heaven, why are converts specifically addressed, and why are the
words about Mount Sinai directed at them, perhaps exclusively?
Furthermore, a second question noted above remains unanswered: Why, in Hilkhot
T'filla, does Rambam mention only the law (not to lean while translating the
Torah, but to stand in awe and reverence), while in Hilkhot Hagigah, Rambam mentions
the law and its theological significance as well, ("Stand in awe and
reverence... As the day when the Law was given at Sinai").
Perhaps noting Rambam's treatment of
Revelation in other contexts may shed light on the proper interpretation here. Rabbi
Walter Wurzberger writes:
Maimonides goes
as far as to claim that at Sinai, with the single exception of Moses, the
people were unable to grasp the content of what they had heard. In his opinion,
the events at Sinai represented, insofar as the experience of all but Moses was
concerned, a revelation of the Divine Presence, but not the communication of content.[28]
We see, therefore, that with the
exception of Moshe Rabbenu, there was no intellectual experience per se at Sinai.
Rather, the experience was purely emotional or spiritual. We may conjecture
that for the Jew whose soul stood at Sinai, it was not necessary to make special
emotional preparations for Hakhel, but merely to pay attention. However, for
the convert, who is not as yet emotionally "initiated", it was
necessary to make a special provision so that he may become "a full- fledged
Jew" to the degree that he, too, can feel that he stood with the Jewish
People at Sinai.[29]
In other words, Hakhel can be seen as a
"refresher course" in the emotional or spiritual aspects of membership
in the Jewish People for those who participated in the original, archetypal experience
at Sinai. For those who did not
participate in that original experience, Hakhel becomes a
"substitute", initiating them in much the same way. For the convert, then,
Hakhel is Revelation.[30]
Hakhel Without the Temple?
Part of the motivation of the Aderet for
"re-introducing" Hakhel was his hope that the mitzvah would soon be
reinstituted, if not in the rebuilt Temple, then perhaps in some symbolic form.
He therefore felt it necessary to offer an explanation as to why a symbolic observance
of this mitzva was not introduced at any time following the destruction of the
Second Temple, as was the case with numerous other mitzvot.[31]
Some suggest that in fact a symbolic celebration of Hakhel was introduced, namely
Simhat Torah! The first person to make this association was Abarbanel[32]
who wrote that during the six years of the shmitta cycle the High Priest,
prophet, judge or leader of the people would read in public from the Torah and
complete the first four of the books of the Torah. In the seventh year, the
king would read from Deuteronomy. From this the custom in our days was
established on Shmini Atzeret, on the last day, we call it Simhat Torah,
on that day we finish the Torah and the leader of the community gets up and finishes
the Torah, reading himself, without a meturgeman (translator). He reads the
portion "Ve'Zot haB'racha" to resemble the act of the king in
ancient times.[33]
A basic question may be posed: Hakhel did
not take place on Shmini Atzeret. It took place on the first of the
Intermediate Days of Tabernacles, as we see from the Mishna: "...at the
conclusion of the first day of the Festival[34]
(of Tabernacles)..." However, it should be noted that the Mishna as quoted
in the Palestinian Talmud differs: "...at the conclusion of the last day
of the Festival... ".[35] This variation would
place the Hakhel ceremony on Shmini Atzeret,
as per Abarbanel, yet most, if
not all commentators dismiss this
version as a textual error.[36] However, some evidence does exist in support
of this reading. Aside from Abarbanel, we find a statement of R. Hai Gaon:
Some read 'For this command" (Deut.
30:1 l), as we learned 'the last day of yom tov we read mitzvot
v'hukim'. And so is the custom in the Land of Israel and Jerusalem.)[37]
The passage "For this command"
is found in Deuteronomy 30:11, which immediately precedes the portion dealing
with Hakhel. In order to complete the required number of verses to be read at
any public reading of the Torah, the verses dealing with Hakhel would certainly
have had to be read at this time. R. Hai Gaon's statement, then, albeit
obscure, may serve as a source for a custom which connected Hakhel to Shmini
Atzeret/Simhat Torah.
In the Sefer HaManhig we find:
The custom in
France is to read Ecclesiastes before the Torah reading on Shmini Atzeret...
And I found a good reason for this. For Solomon, may he rest in peace, on hag
(Shmini Atzeret) said it (Ecclesiastes) as part of the Hakhe1[38]...
to reproach Israel. Therefore it is proper to say it on the hag (Shmini
Atzeret).[39]
While the Sefer HaManhig is certainly not
a definitive source for the practices of King Solomon at the Hakhel ceremony,
but is rather an attempt to explain a common custom of the French Jewish community,
the source is of interest nonetheless. It indicates that a relationship between
Hakhel and Shmini Atzeret / Simhat Torah did exist at some level.
Rabbi S.
K. Mirsky,[40] Shmuel
Safrai[41] and
Y. T. Levinsky[42]
all contend that Simhat Torah began as a symbolic form of Hakhel. A. Ya'ari[43]
argues that Simhat Torah was first established independently of Hakhel, but
that at a later date it took on customs which may be better understood in light
of a possible relationship with Hakhel. Foremost would be what we know as
"Hatan Torah ", as mentioned by Abarbanel quoted above. A
leader of the community is called to the Torah to read the last portion, thus
"completing" the cycle of yearly readings. Secondly, the involvement of
children and the custom of calling children up to the Torah may relate to the
unique requirement of Hakhel to include women[44]
and children in the ceremony.[45]
A third custom of Simhat Torah which may be better understood in light of a
connection with Hakhel is that of calling each and every male up to the Torah, reminiscent
of the mass participation in Hakhel.
Since the publication of the Aderet's
pamphlet, a symbolic observance of the mitzva of Hakhel has, in fact, been
instituted. It seems proper to conclude with a free translation of the Aderet's
own thoughts on Hakhel:
"May He of
Blessed Name grant us to merit to hear the reading of the Hakhel in our Temple,
from the mouth of our Righteous Messiah, as the Priests and Levites engage in
their service and all of Israel is assembled”.[46]
[1]
Republished in Kovelz Hakhel. Rabbi Binyamin Rabinowitz Teomim,
ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1973.)
[2] The
author writes, "My intention is not, God forbid, money or honor. Therefore
I will not reveal my name." Kovetz Hakhel, Pg- 23.
[3] Ibid.,
pp. 7, 16. All later sources have accepted the authorship with the exception of
A. Hilovitz. See Chokrei HaZmanim Vol. I (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav
Kook, 1978), p. 258, note 42 and p. 267, note 42. An oddity in the original
pamphlet is the inclusion of an approbation written by the Rov of Ponevizh, the
Aderet himself. This is especially odd given that the author, presumably the
Aderet, declined to sign his name to the work out of modesty, yet the
approbation signed by the Aderet for the pamphlet describes its author as
"harav hagaon hamekhaber, shilta" (loosely, the brilliant rabbi who
authored this pamphlet). This would indeed be a peculiar modus operandi
for a man motivated by modesty. However, it is worth noting that of the three
approbations included in the original pamphlet, that of the Aderet is the only
one which actually attests to having read the contents, and it includes three
pages of supplemental notes.
A second
point of interest may be seen in what I believe is a cryptic hint included by
the author in his introduction to the pamphlet:
…and in our days let there be seen upon the
hills the feet of the Messenger Elijah for the Son of David shall
come speedily in our days...
The
Aderet's given name was of course, Elijah David. There are other works which
have been written anonymously yet attributed to the Aderet which received
approbations from “the Rov of Ponevizh”.
[4] Deuteronomy
31:10 ff.
[5] Rabbi
Dovid Zvi Hoffman, Commentary to Sefer Devarim, Hebrew
translation. Vol. 2, 30:11 (Tel Aviv: Netzach, 1961).
Ibid.
[6] Ibid
[7] Mishna
Torah, Hilkhot Hagiga, Chapter 3, Law 6.
[8] Exodus
20:8, Deuteronomy 15:1, 31:10. (I am not convinced that this is the only
way to read and understand the Ibn Ezra’s position)
[9]Ramban, Commentary
on the Torah. Sec verses cited in proceeding note.
[10] Mishna Sotah
Chapter 7 Mishna 8. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 41.
[11] Hoffman,
Commentary to Sefer Devarim.
[12] Leviticus
25:21
[13] Deuteronomy
4:10. cf. Hoffman, above: Natanel Helfgot "Smichat Parshiot
in Parshat Vayelech and Their Meaning," in Alon Shvut
No. 118 (Sivan 5747).
[14] Jerusalem
Talmud, Megilah 4:1. Cf. Avot d'Rabbi Nathan 1:1, Pesikta
d'Rav Kahana 77a, Vayikra Rabbah 27:6. See also S.
Lieberman in JQR, Vol. 35, 1944, p. 7f., where parallel sources in Greek
literature are cited, including the following:
"I will cite one example of how the people
are to react to the public reading of the king's letters: 'A profound silence
reigns when those rescripts are read. There is not the slightest noise. Everyone
listens most attentively to the orders contained in them. Whoever makes the
slightest noise thereby interrupting the reading runs the greatest danger. All
the more should one stand with fear and trepidation, in order to understand the
contents of what is said to you.'" (Chyrsosiom Migne, PC Llll, 112). Professor
Lieberman sets the
time of this source as approximately
100 years after the Midrashim that are cited above.
[15] Rambam,
Laws of Prayer 12:11
[16] Rabbi
J. Soloveitchik, Shiurim Lzecher Abba Mori. Vol 2 (Jerusalem,
1985), p. 208 ff. Cf. Rabbi A. Hilovitz, Chokrei HaZmanim, Volume 2
(Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1980), p. 291 ff.
[17] Babylonian
Talmud, Hagiga 3a. Cf. the explanation of this braita by Rabbi
Natan Adler, Torat Emet, page 26.
[18] Aderet,
in his approbation to Zecher L 'Mikdash, pg. 22.
[19] Rambarn
L'Am (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1960), with notes by Rabbi Zevulun
Zaks. See p. 96, note 46.
[20] Hilovitz,
Chokrei HaZmanim vol I p. 257 ff. Also see Rabbi Chaim Heller, Sefer
Mitzvot (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook), p. 83 note 8.
[21] Chokrei
HaZmanim, p. 256.
[22] Sefer HaMitzvot, Ramban's
additional notes, negative commandment 2.
[23] Sefer
HaMitzvot, positive commandment 16.
[24] What
Hilovitz calls "internal" would seem to me "external", and
vice versa. If anything, the internal message of Hakhel would be its
relationship to Mount Sinai, while the external would be its relationship with
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Both of these aspects are found in the Yad,
which should require an analysis
of the Yad
itself, rather than comparison with Sefer HaMitzvot.
See discussion below.
[25] Rabbi
Shlomo Goren, "Mitzvat Hakhel L'Or HaHalacha," in Torat HaMoadim
Tel Aviv: Tzioni, 1964), pp. 127-138.
[26] Rambam,
Hilkhot Hagiga 3:1.
[27] See
Aderet, Kovelz Hakhel, p. 36, For a more comprehensive discussion,
see Rabbi S. Y. Zevin, ed.. Encyclopedia Talmudit (Jerusalem,
1981),Vol 10,p.443ff, for an expanded version of this entry. Rabbi Zevin's L'Or
HaHalakha (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 135-145. Other discussions of Hakhel
may be found in Rabbi 1. Jacobson, Netiv Bina (Tel Aviv: Sinai,
1978), Vol. 4 pp. 172-176: Rabbi Y. M. Epstein, Arukh HaShulhan HeAtid
(Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1971), pp. 188 ff.
[28] Walter
S. Wurzberger, "Covenantal Imperatives", in G. Appel, ed., Samuel
K. Mirsky Memorial Volume (New York: Yeshiva
University Press, 1970), p. II. See Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed,
part 2 Chapter 35. Furthermore, Rabbi
Wurzberger notes, this is the explanation of the passage in the Passover
Haggada, "Had we been brought to Mount Sinai without being given the
Torah, it would have sufficed," Note the distinction between actually
receiving the Torah and the experience of being at Sinai.
[29] According
to this suggestion the status of a convert attending the second Hakhel
ceremony is not clear. An article was brought to my attention, (Menahem Kasdan,
Gesher, Yeshiva University Press, 1969) which analyzes the verses read
at the Hakhel ceremony and compares them to the instructions and charges given
to a candidate for conversion.
Kasdan concludes that Hakhel is actually a "ceremony of
conversion" anew, for the entire People of Israel. (I am indebted to Rabbi
Ahron Adler for bringing this article to my attention.)
[30] For
Rambam's treatment of converts in other contexts, see Yad, Laws of
Bikurum 4:3; Response to Ovadia the Convert. Furthermore, note the similarity
of language between the law in Hagiga,
"For Scripture has ordained it solely for the strengthening of true
religion", and Rambam's Commentary on Mishna Bikukrim 1:4, Rabbi J.
Kapah, ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1963), Vol. I, p. 263, where Rambam explains
the law that a convert may say 'The God of our fathers" in his prayers,
despite the ruling of the Mishna to the contrary: "For Abraham is teacher
of the true religion and thereby the spiritual father of all
converts."
[31] Kovetz
Hakhel, p. 24 ff.
[32] Abarbanel,
Commentary on Torah. Devarim 31:10.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Mishna,
end of Seventh Chapter, Sotah.
[35] See
Mishna, ibid. in Palestinian Talmud, and Cambridge
Manuscript.
Cf. Rabbi M. Schachter, The Babylonian and Palestinian Mishna
(Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1959), p. 201 item 491 and notes: S. Lieberman, Tosefta
Kifshuta (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1973) Vol. 8, p. 684.
[36] See
commentators on Palestinian Talmud, ad loc.
[37] See B.
M. Levin, Otzar HaGeonim, Megilla 31 a.
[38] See
Kings 8:1.
[39] R.
Avraham Natan HaYarki, HaManhig, (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1978). Y.
Raphael, ed., p. 416, ff., item 57. Cf. Rav Aharon HaCohen of Lunel, Orhot
Haim, Hilkhot Lulav.
[40] Rabbi
S. K. Mirsky, "Hakhel" in Talpiot, year 6 Pamphlet no. 122
(Nisan 1953), pp. 104-107.
[41] S.
Safrai, "Ma'aseihem Shel Olei Regel B'Yerushalim B'Ymei Bayit Sheini"
(The Behavior of Pilgrims in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period), in Sinai.
Vol. 46, p. 292. Cf. Safrai, Ha'Aliya L'Regel B'Ymei Bayit
HaSheni (Pilgrimage in the Second Temple Period), p. 196.
[42] Yomtov
Levinsky, "Simhat Hakhel VSimhat Torah", in Mahanaim
Vol. 40 (Erev Rosh Hashana 5721), pp. 177-180.
[43] Avraham
Ya'ari, Toldot Hag Simhat Torah (Jerusalem: Mosad
HaRav Kook, 1964), p. 358.
[44] Regarding
the participation of women in Simhat Torah, see Ya'ari, op. cit.,
chapter 28.
[45] See
Ya'ari, op. cit. chapter 27, p. 243 and notes ad loc.
[46] Kovetz
Hakhel, p. 27.
* This article was originally written in
1988, it appeared in the “Council of Young Israel Rabbi annual journal” volume
2, 1988; “The Commandment of Hakhel” pages 74-89. The present version contains
a few small changes.
