The Prohibition of Lo Titgodedu (Part 1)
TALMUDIC METHODOLOGY
By Rav
Moshe Taragin
Shiur
#07: The Prohibition of Lo Titgodedu (Part 1)
In Parashat Re'eh (chapter 14) the
Torah describes various prohibitions relating to avoda zara. Among them
is the issur of lo titgodedu, excessive mourning for the dead
through self-mutilation. Many ancient pagan cultures engaged in this mourning
practice and it is therefore prohibited.
The gemara in Yevamot (13b)
derives an additional (presumably unrelated) issur from this pasuk
lo ta'asu agudot agudot which is commonly referred to as the
issur of lo titgodedu. In broad terms, this issur relates
to behaving in a deviant halakhic manner, dividing into groups that have
differing halakhic practices. The prohibition appears to be aimed at guarding
against the disintegration of accepted halakhic behavior or the splintering of
shemirat ha-mitzvot. Given the robust role of machloket within our
tradition, however, this issur of dividing into groups seems odd. Given
that there are numerous acceptable halakhic practices, what is wrong with
observing one which differs from that of others?
In his comments to the gemara in
Yevamot (13b), Rashi claims that the issur prevents the
development of multiple torot. Just as we assert the unity of
Ha-Kadosh Baruch Hu Himself, we similarly maintain the oneness of His Torah;
it was ALL delivered at Sinai as an indivisible corpus representing His will.
Allowing different groups to practice divergent halakhot would suggest
multiple torot and present theological confusion.
The Rambam in Hilkhot Avoda Zara
(chapter 12), however, claims that the issur is meant to stem
machloket and social dissent. Allowing diverse halakhic practices
would undoubtedly yield disunity and confrontation. While according to Rashi,
the issur represents a theological agenda, according to the Rambam, it
represents a social one.
Each position is rooted in the textual
reference to this issur. The fact that the phrase lo titgodedu
is positioned after a lengthy description of avoda zara-related
halakhot would initially seem to support Rashi's view that the issur
has a theological purpose. Alternatively, the preface of the pasuk
containing the phrase lo titgodedu claims, "Banim atem le-Hashem
Elokeichem, You are all children of God; while this preface emphasizes
the Jewish aversion to paganism, it also reinforces the importance of social
unity. If we are truly one family, sons of the same father, solidarity is an
asset worth protecting, and lo titgodedu and halakhic conformity may be
part of that protection.
In fact several Amoraim limited this
issur of lo titgodedu and their differing understandings of the
nature of this halakha may be reflected in these limitations. The gemara's
(only) discussion of the issur centers around the practice of differing
Megilla readings; while those in most cities read on the 14th
of Adar, those in walled cities read on the 15th. Reish Lakish
questions why these divergent readings do not violate lo titgodedu. R.
Yochanan is surprised at Reish Lakish's concern. After all, this is hardly the
only example of differing minhagim. On Erev Pesach, some towns
adopted a minhag of refraining from melakha, while other locations
allowed it. Why was Reish Lakish so alarmed about different Megilla
readings but undisturbed by differing Erev Pesach practices? R. Yochanan
implies that neither situation violates the prohibition of lo titgodedu,
a position later elaborated by Abbaye and Rava.
Reish Lakish attempts to respond to R.
Yochanan's claim by differentiating between the two examples. Differing labor
practices on Erev Pesach are clearly unrelated to lo titgodedu, as
the differences are based PURELY upon MINHAGIM or customs; abstaining
from melakha on Erev Pesach has no halakhic source.
Discrepancies in minhagim certainly do not violate lo titgodedu!
Reish Lakish was concerned about different Megilla reading schedules,
however, as this is a discrepancy anchored in HALAKHIC factors.
Presumably (as reasoned by many
Acharonim, including the Keren Ora), Reish Lakish would agree with
Rashi's reasoning for the prohibition of lo titgodedu. According to the
Rambam, lo titigodedu deters disputes and dissent, in which case there
should be no difference between minhag and Halakha. In fact, people are
often more passionate about their minhagim than they are about Halakha!
Disputes are just as likely, if not more likely, to erupt as a result of
minhag divergence as they are about halakhic differences, and lo
titgodedu should be just as applicable in the former case. If Reish Lakish
agrees in principle with Rashi, however, and lo titgodedu prevents the
presentation of a splintered Divine Torah, we could easily envision the
suspension of lo titgodedu in situations of minhag.
Ascribing Reish Lakishs position to
Rashi's logic does not constitute a problem for the Rambam, as we may not
ultimately accept Reish Lakish's position. Thus, his underlying logic may not
represent the true essence of lo titgodedu. The question of whether to
accept Reish Lakish's position and suspend lo titgodedu in situations of
pure minhag was hotly debated by several Acharonim. This dispute
has implications for numerous issues, such as divergent nusach
ha-tefilla, differing schedules of mourning practices during sefirat
ha-omer, and Medieval period fast days established on a local basis (such
as 2 Sivan).
Subsequently the gemara (Yevamot
14a), provides an additional limitation of the prohibition of lo
titgodedu in order to explain the differing yibum practices of
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel (recorded in the first mishna in
Yevamot). Why didnt this discrepancy violate lo titgodedu? Rava
and Abbaye each suggest answers which effectively limit the scope of the
prohibition.
Rava claims that lo titgodedu
would only apply if members of a split Beit Din continued practicing
their halakhic opinion in defiance of the majority ruling of the Beit
Din. Essentially, Rava radically changes the essence of lo titgodedu.
We had previously assumed that this issue prevents splintered halakhic
practice, intending either a social or theological agenda. According to Rava,
however, lo titgodedu DOES NOT govern or limit halakhic pluralism at all;
it merely limits behavior of outvoted dayanim. It is merely a judicial
tool to ensure the authority of the Beit Din.
Abbaye is less constricting of lo
titgodedu, but nonetheless imposes a limitation. In his view, the
prohibition does not apply if the differing practices are spearheaded by
different batei dinim located in different cities. Somehow, the distance
between the two locales eliminates lo titgodedu concerns. The Rambam's
logic appears to be a compelling explanation of this limitation of the issur.
Since the entire concern was avoidance of social dissent, distancing the two
parties avoids argument; the two different practices can coexist. In fact, the
Rambam cites Abbaye's distinction as proof that lo titgodedu is entirely
based upon concern of dispute. When these concerns are alleviated, lo
titgodedu does not apply; the rule is proven by the exception (the situation
of distant towns where is the issur is suspended).
However, even Rashi could theoretically
accept Abbaye's limitation. If the two practices are geographically distant from
one another, differing practices do not apply splintered torot. Once an
independent Beit Din establishes a tradition in a particular locale, it
no longer constitutes a splintered tradition, but rather an autonomous,
co-existent one. Halakha allows for parallel differing approaches; the Divine
will is too infinite to be limited to one truth. WITHIN one tradition, however,
Halakha does not tolerate splintered and multiple approaches. In the absence of
a separate Beit Din and unique locale, the practice entails a deviance;
anchored to a source of authority and locale, it becomes one version of the
Divine will.
Thus, while Abbaye's assertion that
distance circumvents lo titgodedu is easily understood according to the
Rambam, it can also be shaped to fit Rashi's view.
The next shiur will further
explore explanations of lo titgodedu advanced by the Rishonim
within the context of Abbaye's shitta.