A Review of Parashas Hamelech – Al Mitzvas Hakhel, by Rabbi Moshe Parnes

A Review of Parashas Hamelech – Al Mitzvas Hakhel, by Rabbi Moshe Parnes

A Review of Parashas Hamelech – Al Mitzvas Hakhel, by Rabbi Moshe Parnes

Reviewed by: Rabbi Moshe Maimon, Jackson, NJ

Sefer Parashas Hamelech on the mitzvah of Hakhel offers a unique and illuminating contribution on one of the lesser-studied mitzvos of the Torah. It fits the modern genre of encyclopedias on arcane subjects, while also combining elements of older and more established trends in Torah publications, weaving it all together in deft scholarly fashion. It is both an exhaustive accumulation of sources primary and secondary on its topic as well as a lively sefer iyun, providing fresh and penetrating perspectives on everything it touches.

The little explored, but very timely mitzvah of Hakhel which in the Temple era entailed a mass gathering at the Beis Hamikdash in the post-sabbatical year, where the assemblage would hear the Jewish King perform a special Torah reading, has been largely uncharted by the major halachic compendiums. A noteworthy exception is the Rambam who included it in his Hilchos Chagigah; the section of Mishneh Torah pertaining to the tri-annual Temple pilgrimage. The obvious reason for its exclusion from the codes is that this mitzvah was not of practical relevance for the Jewish Diaspora, and thus became a topic for theoretical discussion by experts only.

Interest in this mitzvah, however, was generated in scholarly circles with the return to the Land of Israel by large segments of World Jewry. Late in the 19th century, the illustrious R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teumim (“the Aderes”) published (anonymously) what to this point has been considered the most exhaustive treatment of the topic, his Zecher Lemikdash. (A major focus of the Aderes has been the possibility of reestablishing this mitzvah in modern times, even if only as a testimonial—an idea elaborated upon by R. Shmuel Kalman Mirsky in his article in Talpiyot vol. 6 pp. 92-118).

Additionally, besides for being virgin halachic ground, this topic also leads into fascinating discussions on more classical halachic topics such as laws the pertaining to daily prayer, the reverential treatment of Torah scrolls, and the specific requirements for the weekly Torah reading. Naturally, an incisive treatment of the unique Hakhel service in the Beis Hamikdash is of necessity accompanied by deep dives into the broader context of other mitzvos that were specifically pertinent in the Temple era, as well as close examinations of various elements of the Temple services and the qualifications necessary for Jewish royalty along with other such related topics.

With every passing shmittah cycle, interest in Hakhel seems to swell and this year is no different. Our author, Reb Moshe Parnes, a self-described businessman living in Boro Park but clearly a gifted scholar who devotes a good portion of his day to intense Torah study, timed the launch of Parashas Hamelech perfectly. His magnum opus was primed and perfected just in time for the culmination of the current shmittah cycle.

The volume begins with a thorough introduction devoted to the “aggadic” aspects of Hakhel and presents various different perspectives on the unique mitzvah, all culled from a wide variety of classical sources, such as the following:

  • A mass Torah-study session.

  • A demonstration geared for enhancing fear of Heaven among the masses.

  • An outgrowth of the mitzvah to make pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdash during the shalosh regalim (a perspective enhanced by the Rambam’s placement of this mitzvah in Mishneh Torah as mentioned previously).

  • A reenactment of kabbalas haTorah.

The main body of the sefer is divided into three parts: The primary text is written in the style of a Shulchan Aruch with short, anonymous pronouncements given in the form of chapters (simanim) and paragraphs (se’ifim), which cover all the halachos of Hakhel divided into three main categories:

A] The section on the general aspects of the mitzvah covers the exact time and place for the mitzvah; the technical aspects of how the platform is constructed and the Torah scroll that is to be used for the reading.

This section ends with a spirited discussion of the sources regarding the fulfillment of this mitzvah in contemporary times. It concludes that since the mitzvah is dependent on mitzvas r’iyah (the Temple pilgrimage) which cannot be practically fulfilled without the Beis Hamikdash, the mitzvah of Hakhel cannot either be fulfilled at this time. To counter the suggestion of the Aderes that we at least make a remembrance for this mitzvah, the author points out that a zecher is not enacted when the mitzvah itself was never performed outside of the Beis Hamikdash. (The Aderes himself, following the Yaavetz, adopted the view that the custom of reading Sefer Devarim on Hashanah Rabbah evolved out of a zecher for Hakhel. If this were true, the author’s point would be considerably weakened, but it should be noted that this idea is purely speculative and does not account for the fact that the custom is practiced every year, whereas Hakhel was only relevant once in seven years).

B] The second section is devoted to the unique Torah reading that constitutes the actual mitzvah of Hakhel, and encompasses all aspects of this reading. At the end of this section, the author shows how many sources understood that this Torah reading was intended to lead into a practical mussar shmooze by the king, who would even exhort the people to be more pious in their religious observance. One prominent Italian sage, R. Shmuel Yehuda Katzenellenbogen (d. Padua, 1597), illustrates this point with a sampling of a schmooze targeting the ills of his own time—married women who did not cover their hair, or who wore wigs!

C] Section three covers all the rules regarding who is obligated by this mitzvah and who is exempt. No scenario is left unexplored, from children to converts to people with physical disabilities and much more. It is here that we can find detailed discussions pertaining to all aspects of life, even one as seemingly mundane as whether someone with impaired vision necessitating eyeglasses is considered “blind” and thereby exempted from Hakhel.

The main text is rather comprehensive and treats pretty much every aspect of the halachos of Hakhel, but it is in the two subtexts where we are treated to full blown halachic expositions of a great array of topics. The section titles “biurim” deals primarily with the material treated in the main text, providing the sources for the cited opinions with a good deal of breadth and thorough analysis—sure to delight those with a lomdishe bent.

The “iyunim” section, on the other hand, branches off the “biurim” section and includes in its scope interesting dives into topics which may be tangential to the main discussion but are compelling on their own. A sampling: What are the halachic prerequisites for determining who is a shoteh (insane)? Did the Israelite kings of the ten tribes have the halachic status of Jewish kings? What are the parameters of the mourner status conferred on one who has been placed in niddui (excommunication)? What is the reason for reading the Aseres Hadibros with the taam elyon? These and many more discussions are listed in the detailed topical index included at the end of the sefer.

The source material used for this work is exceptionally rich. When we read in the introduction the passionate dedication to the author’s late father, who possessed a tremendous library and knew how to utilize it well in his scholarly pursuits, we get the sense that the son is likewise in possession of these blessings. The fifteen-page bibliography at the end of the volume provides the authors’ names and dates of publication for the roughly 500 titles cited in the text.

A section at the end of the sefer includes a lively back and forth between the author and other scholars pertaining to their comments on his work, in which Rabbi Parnes credits his colleagues generously for their insights.

Recent years have seen a flurry of new sefarim which seem, more and more, to deal exclusively with highly specialized topics. This may just be an expression of the development of new directions in Torah scholarship in the contemporary “Torah world.” As celebrated masters of kol hatorah kulah become ever more scarce, their places are taken by localized experts who specialize in specific areas of Torah.

Perhaps, however, this trend is merely symptomatic of the nature of supply and demand in the sefarim market; a sort of Torah capitalism if you will. Consumers, sensing that previous generations have already sowed all that are worthwhile in the field of rabbinic scholarship, trend towards the encyclopedic, targeting sefarim that will reap all the fruits of the generations of labor and serve as a repository of all the information generated by scholars–both ancient and recent–on a given topic. Contemporary authors are simply aiming to meet that demand.

Whether indicative of new trends in Torah study or simply of changing patterns in the marketplace, sefarim focusing exclusively on issues that previously took up a few simanim (or, in some cases, no simanim) in Shulchan Aruch have become commonplace of late. Typically, these works excel more in their bekiyus than in their iyun. While these sefarim can be very effective for research purposes, one who still wishes to revel in that old time iyun is often better served looking for a title authored by one of the greats of the past.

Yet, as evidenced by the sterling example of Parashas Hamelech, the sources that have supplied countless generations with grist for the iyun mills are still capable of inspiring further significant halachic developments when utilized properly by capable baalei iyun. Rabbi Parnes should thus be commended for his wonderful and singular offering to the world of Torah scholarship that combines both of the aforementioned trends.

May the merit of the additional Torah study spurred on by this engaging work contribute to the tipping of the Heavenly scales and hasten us to that long-awaited moment where we can once again practice this monumental mitzvah.

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

12 thoughts on “A Review of Parashas Hamelech – Al Mitzvas Hakhel, by Rabbi Moshe Parnes

  1. B”H.

    Based on the reviews, it seems like this is a very nice Sefer.

    However it is a shame that an encyclopedic work on this topic, chooses to omit all of the Torah of one of the single most prolific writers (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) on this topic.

    Not bringing the Rebbe’s words at all about the Mitzvah of Hakhel is definitely a fundamental flaw in a book which claims to encompass the subject. This statement has nothing to do with Chabad fanaticism (Full disclosure: I am a Lubavitcher). It is just an observation of a fact, from an objective point of view. We are talking about a subject that is quite bereft of much writings on this topic, and one leaves out the Torah of the Rebbe on this topic, one is missing out on obtaining an accurate picture on the topic.

    By the way, I should clarify: When I write “most prolific”, I am talking about sheer quantity, in which the Rebbe over the years touched on all types of aspects of this Mitzvah, from Halacha to Haskafah, from how it was practiced in the time of the Beis HaMikdash, until today’s day and age.

    I would not expect an average person on the street to be aware of this information, however for an author who has engaged in such exhaustive research on this topic, he was most certainly aware of this (and might have possibly also borrowed from such sources, to his own writings).

    1. “However it is a shame that an encyclopedic work on this topic, chooses to omit all of the Torah of one of the single most prolific writers (the Lubavitcher Rebbe) on this topic.”

      I don’t have the sefer, so I don’t know either way, but it sounds like you don’t have it either either, so how do you know that this is the case?

    2. Perhaps it’s too late to change the sefer itself, but perhaps Nachum you could help fill in the gaps. Are there any specific chiddushim or shitose (of the Rebbe, or others) which the sefer left out but should have discussed?

      1. BH

        Not sure what to do.

        Wrote up a comment twice, with some relevant links, but it seems like it is not going through moderation.

  2. Please forgive my various typos and grammatical errors. I got used to be being able to delete something which has been written, and then edit it and resend it.

  3. “One prominent Italian sage, R. Shmuel Yehuda Katzenellenbogen (d. Padua, 1597), illustrates this point with a sampling of a schmooze targeting the ills of his own time—married women who did not cover their hair, or who wore wigs!”
    Can you please point me to the exact source? Thank you.

  4. The Sefer seems very interesting, and interesting review, too. We do indeed seem to be heading into a world of specialization. Tho, one might argue, perhaps a tad too much specialization – unless one likes to see entire volumes dedicated to the laws of sneezing or Hagbah…

    One question I’ve long wondered, and perhaps R. Maimon can address, or knows if the book addresses – the mitzvah of Hakhel seems to come entirely from Moshe, in Devarim 31:12. Unlike all (I think) other biblical commandments, there is no verse beforehand stating “God said to Moshe saying” or the like. The straightforward reading is that Moshe himself directed the people to read it. Yet is considered one of the 613 mitzvos. Is this question addressed by anyone? Or perhaps I am mistaken in thinking it is unique in not having any direct statement of God’s command?

      1. Thanks. Most mitzvos in Devarim fall within Chapters 12 – 28, which constitute a unique portion, beginning with אלה החקים והמשפטים אשר תשמרון לעשות בארץ
        and concluding with אלה דברי הברית אשר צוה ה’ את משה לכרות את בנ”י בארץ מואב מלבד הברית אשר כרת אתם בחורבץ . Most of the new mitzvos in Devarim, like yibum or gittin, is in this section. Some say this section is actually the משנה תורה the King is supposed to carry with him, and it was this section that was written on stones across the Jordan, and it was this that was found in the Temple, etc. These mitzvos are clearly referred to as God’s command.

        Hakhel, though, is not in this section. There is nothing tying it back to God. Hence my question.

  5. The Ibn Ezra holds that a ger toshav should also go to hakhel because they might be inspired to convert. I always thought that was interesting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *