2019/5780
Does Halachah require everyone praying in one synagogue to follow the same practices? At first glance, it seems that the answer is a resounding yes. However, as we shall see, the matter is not so simple.
Lo Titgodedu Basics – Source, Character, and Scope
The Torah (Devarim 14:1) forbids us to cut ourselves in mourning for the dead: “Lo Titgodedu Etchem VeLo Tasimu Korchah Bein Eineichem LaMeit,” “Do not lacerate yourselves or place a bald patch between your eyes over a dead person.” Chazal (Yevamot 13b), in turn, interpret Lo Titgodedu as teaching, “Lo Ta’asu Agudot Agudot”, “Do not split into different factions.”[1]
The Acharonim debate as to whether the prohibition to separate into different groups is a Torah or Rabbinic level prohibition. The Maharal (Gur Aryeh Parashat Re’eh 14:1) believes it is a Torah level prohibition, whereas the Chida (Sha’ar Yosef Horiyot 7b) argues that it is a rabbinic edict.
Significantly, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 4:36) rules in accordance with the Chida that it is only a rabbinic level prohibition. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Orach Chaim 4:34) rules that it is a Torah level prohibition. Thus, it is not surprising that Rav Ovadia takes a more lenient approach to Lo Titgodedu than does Rav Moshe.
The Rishonim also debate the reason for the prohibition to form different groups. Rashi (Yevamot 13b s.v. Amina) explains the reason for this prohibition is that when some Jews follow one law and other Jews follow another, it gives the appearance as though there are two Torahs. Rambam (Hilchot Avodah Zarah 12:14), on the other hand, states that the reason behind this prohibition is to avoid creating great conflict among Jews.
Rava and Abayei (Yevamot 14a) argue as to whether the prohibition applies to a situation of “Shetei Batei Din Be’Ir Achat”, “Two rabbinic courts in one city.” Rava adopts the lenient view and Abayei adopts the stricter view. Although Rambam follows the opinion of Abayei, the majority of Rishonim hold otherwise (Rabbeinu Yerucham Netiv 2 cited by Beit Yoseif Yoreh Dei’ah 242:4, Beit Yoseif 624:5, Tashbeitz 3:179). This is not surprising, since we generally follow Rava, except for in six specific cases (and this debate is not one of them).
It seems, at this point, that one synagogue or community constitutes one Beit Din and a uniform practice should be observed in such a setting. This appears to be the ruling of the Rama (Orah Haim 493:3) who writes that disparate observances of the Omer mourning period in a single community violate Lo Titgodedu.
Exceptions to the Rule – Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous Communities
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Orach Chayim 1:159) notes that in this country (i.e. the United States) Jews have gathered from the various regions of Europe and continue the Halachic practices of their former communities. Subsequent generations continue the practices of their parents. Thus, in the United States, most communities do not have one unified Minhag regarding the observance of the mourning during the Omer period. According to Rav Moshe, one might argue that American Jewry constitutes “a massive Shenei Batei Din Be'ir Echad” and does not violate Lo Titgodedu in regard to its upholding divergent practices.
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein does not go as far as to make such a sweeping statement. In fact, he prohibits having two different practices in one Beit Kenesset; for example, a synagogue with some congregants wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMo’eid and others not wearing Tefillin at that time would violate Lo Titgodedu.
Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:44), though, makes an argument supporting divergent practices regarding wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMo’eid. He writes that after the Holocaust, when centuries-old communities which had distinct customs were destroyed and survivors gathered and formed one community, an understanding emerged that everyone follows the practices of their former communities and families.
Thus, Rav Shternbuch countenances in such communities divergent practices regarding wearing Tefillin on Chol HaMo’eid. This is indeed the practice in many Ashkenazic synagogues. In such synagogues, it is also common to see unmarried young men of German-Jewish descent wearing a Tallit before their marriage, even though most of the unmarried men in the synagogue do not wear a Tallit.
Rav Shternbuch explains that Lo Titgodedu does not apply to such a situation because there is consent to the divergent practices. This fits with the reason the Rambam offers for the prohibition to break into factions. If the reason for Lo Titgodedu is a fear of strife, then in a case of consent, it follows, there is no prohibition of Lo Titgodedu.[2]
According to Rav Shternbuch (and to a lesser extent Rav Moshe), we may distinguish between homogeneous and heterogeneous communities. The prohibition of Lo Titgodedu would then apply only to a homogenous community.
We may further clarify that even regarding a heterogeneous synagogue, there may actually be a blend of conformity and diversity. While different practices are tolerated and accepted regarding certain specific practices such as Tefillin on Chol HaMoed and Tallit for unmarried men, there may be an expectation of uniformity in regards to many or even most other matters such as the Nusach of the Tefillah.
Conclusion
This week, we laid out the basics of Lo Titgodedu and considered the approaches of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Moshe Shternbuch. Next week, Im Yirtzeh Hashem, we will introduce the approach of Chacham Ovadia Yosef and analyze the various opinions with an eye toward practical Halachah.
[1] See the Sheim MiShemuel (Parashat Re’eh) for an explanation of the connection between the prohibitions to cut oneself in mourning and separating into factions.
[2] It would appear that one can make such an assertion only if one assumes that Lo Titgodedu regarding divergent practices is only a rabbinic prohibition.