Iyun Masechet Sota: 41a

The information that Chazal provide us regarding the mitzva of Hakhel is scanty. The primary source of the mitzva's halakhot are the few lines that appear in our sugya along with occasional references haphazardly scattered throughout Shas. In our sugya, aside from the Mishna's description of the actual ceremony, the Gemara limits itself to consideration of the date of Hakhel, without entering into any further discussion of other aspects. The only other significant Talmudic source are three lines in Chagiga (3a) that determine who is obligated in Hakhel and who is exempt from the mitzva, based upon an analogy between Hakhel and the mitzva of aliya la-regel.

Nevertheless, as we shall discuss below, one essential truth regarding Hakhel is obvious – its ceremonial nature. The format of Hakhel, the public assembly that includes illiterate members of the community as well as toddlers - all gathered on a festive occasion - is not designed to dispense knowledge but to create a ceremony. This is attested to by the insistence upon Hebrew and the ineligibility of the vernacular in the Hakhel reading. As was explained in previous shiurim, any language or form of expression is legitimate if the aim is the transmission of knowledge, so that the disqualification of other languages is a clear sign that the role of the text is ceremonial or metaphysical, and not intellectual. The essential ceremonial quality of Hakhel having been recognized, we must now query as to the underlying concept and purpose of Hakhel - why did the Torah desire it and what are the goals that is it attempting to achieve by assembling all of Israel and reading the Torah to them?

The Torah emphasizes two elements in its treatment of Hakhel – the fact that it takes place at a time when all of Am Yisrael are assembled in Yerushalayim to visit the KBH,  and that the Torah should be read. At first glance, the pesukim that determine the date of Hakhel on Sukkot - "when all of Israel have come to be viewed by the KBH" - could be understood as choosing a convenient date for a Torah assembly that is unrelated to the specific date (the halakha of bal te'acher comes to mind as a possible model for such a suggestion). However, the exemption from Hakhel of most (but not all) of those who are exempt from the mitzva of aliya la-regel seems to indicate that there is a common idea to the two mitzvot. (The above-mentioned Gemara in Chagiga derives halakhot of aliya la-regel from Hakhel. The Rambam (Chagiga 3:2) learned from the Gemara's formula that the reverse is also true). In other words, Hakhel is not perceived exclusively as a learning ceremony but as an act of communal pilgrimage, as an aliya la-regel in its own right. As the individual is obligated to periodically appear before the KBH in intervals that are significant to his life span, so too the public must present itself to the KBH at the conclusion of the cycle that relates to the communal time span. Seven years in the life of a community are proportionate to a lesser period of time in the individual's life; therefore, although the time span differs, the basic mitzva of appearing before God is common to the community and the individual. This is the reason that the Chag of Sukkot, rather than the beginning of the calendar year is chosen, and the underlying logic for the Gemara's reconstruction of the Torah's need to specify Chag Sukkot (for otherwise we would have thought that Rosh HaShana was the time of Hakhel). Had Hakhel not been associated with aliya la-regel, it would indeed have been scheduled for the BEGINNING of the eighth year, as is the case for Yovel (see Rosh HaShana 8b). The fact that the Torah rejected this option and insisted upon Sukkot is due to the fact that Sukkot is a holiday associated with aliya la-regel. Moreover, for reasons that cannot be detailed here, Sukkot is actually THE holiday of aliya la-regel and, therefore, the most fitting occasion for the communal aliya la-regel.

The Rambam's treatment of Hakhel in Mishneh Torah also reflects the idea of aliya la-regel as an important component of the mitzva. This claim is proven by the simple fact that the Rambam placed Hakhel in Hilkhot Chagiga and not in Hilkhot Talmud Torah or Hilkhot Melakhim, as well as his pesak regarding the exemption from Hakhel for those who are not obligated in aliya la-regel.

The Gemara in Chagiga, however, does not establish a complete identity between Hakhel and aliya la-regel, since there are those, such as women, children, who are exempt from aliya la-regel but nevertheless obligated in Hakhel. Thus, we must conclude that there is an additional element that can create an obligation to participate in the Hakhel ceremony that is unrelated to aliya la-regel which is the motivating cause that includes women and children in the mitzva.

The mitzva of Hakhel, of course, includes not only the assembling of the nation in Yerushalayim, but also the reading of the Torah by the King to the assembled throng. In other words, there is an idea of talmud Torah in Hakhel that is the focus of the actual ceremony. This is the additional element that creates the obligation of Hakhel for those exempt from aliya la-regel, for although they are not required to travel to Yerushalayim to appear before the KBH, they must come to hear the reading of the Torah.

Yet the formulation that women and children are obligated in the mitzva of Hakhel solely for the purpose of Talmud Torah is too simple a solution, since women are not obligated in the mitzva of talmud Torah. (Regardless of the educational position that one advocates as to the desirability of teaching Torah to women, the clear and unequivocal halakhic fact is that the imperative to engage in talmud Torah as a duty is incumbent upon men alone.) Therefore, a more appropriate argument would be to claim that the element of Hakhel that requires the entire nation is not the MITZVA of talmud Torah, from which women are exempt, but the ceremony of the public reading of the Torah.  To state the same point in a somewhat different formulation, it is not the INTELLECTUAL knowledge of the Torah's mitzvot that is at the root of mitzvat talmud Torah that is the essence of the Hakhel ceremony, but the experiential aspect of the public reading. Experience, not information; existential involvement, not intellectual achievement  - this is the raison d'etre of Hakhel.

This point was emphasized by the Rambam in a famous halakha relating to Hakhel:

Converts who do not understand [Hebrew] must prepare themselves to pay attention to hear [the reading of the King] in fear and awe, rejoicing and trembling, as on the day that the Torah was given in Sinai. Even great and knowledgeable sages who are familiar with the entire Torah must listen with specially intense concentration. Whoever can not hear the reading should focus upon the text that is being read, since the Torah's sole goal in its establishment of Hakhel was to strengthen the true law, so that [the participant] should view himself as if at this very moment he is receiving the Torah and hearing it from the Almighty, for the king is a messenger to speak the words of God. (Hilkhot Chagiga 3:6).

Thus, although the pasuk states that the purpose of Hakhel is "to hear and to learn so that they shall fear HaShem your God," the Rambam does not perceive the pasuk as creating a learning mechanism to bring about the fear of God.  Rather it is a ceremony whose purpose is to recreate the experience of Matan Torah. Essentially, the Rambam is telling us, the purpose of Hakhel is experiential and not intellectual, so that even those who do not acquire knowledge, either due to a lack of understanding or an inability to physically hear the reading, are required to listen, as are those who do not receive any new knowledge from the reading since they already know all that is being read.

The Rambam's claim that those who do not understand are obligated to participate in Hakhel is based upon the requirement to bring children, who presumably cannot comprehend the content but are nevertheless required to appear. Actually, although the assumption regarding the minimal intellectual capabilities of the children is quite reasonable, it is not self-evident from the Torah's presentation. The Ramban, in his commentary to the Hakhel passage, claims that the Torah's requirement to assemble the children alongside the adults does not refer to infants and toddlers who can not comprehend the proceedings that they are witnessing, but to children at a later stage of development, who possess the curiosity and the capacity to intellectually benefit from the increase of knowledge that can be achieved by their participation in the event.

The Ramban, though, admits that Chazal interpreted "taf" as toddlers rather than older children, for they explain that the reason that they are required to come to the Hakhel ceremony is not to teach them but to "benefit those that bring them." The meaning of this is obviously not to claim that the hardship of "schlepping" little children to Yerushalayim was designed as an obstacle course to reward those that are able to overcome it, but to establish that the essence of Hakhel for children is in the very fact of their arrival rather than in the knowledge that they gain by listening to the reading. The significance of the arrival should be understood, along the lines of the Rambam's interpretation, that it is the experience of the contact with Torah in the Hakhel ceremony that creates within us the sense of association and identity with Torah and its Giver, as we hear the voice of the King reciting devar HaShem (the divine text).