In searching for a halakhah that was
at least tangentially related to Purim, I came across one close to my heart, the de-oraita
prohibition of lo titgodedu. Without going into the complicated derivation of the
prohibition— a lengthy discussion of its own— we can say that Jews are not
allowed to make themselves agudot, agudot, into separate groups around halakhic issues.
Obviously, there have to be limits to that rule, since we all know (from the time that
we are little) that different brands of Jews practice the religion slightly differently.
As long as each group is basing itself on reliable traditions or opinions, no one
complains— what about Lo Titgodedu? Actually, historically, this question was raised
as soon as Jews from different regions began to live in close proximity to each
other— one such city was 16th century Amsterdam, which had a sizable Sephardic
community (from the Expulsion from Spain), but also had many Ashkenazic Jews as well. At
that point, it became accepted that there was no problem with having two different batei
din, two different views of how to practice the religion, even within the same city. That
was, however, an important limitation on lo titgodedu; it had now become accepted that
within the same town or city, Jews could follow two different customs or points of view on
halakhic issues.
Without giving the whole history, the fundamental view today is that in a place where
there are two firmly established traditions, both may practice without repercussions. Lo
titgodedu does come into play, however, in places where only one custom prevails; this
week we'll focus on three examples.
Before getting to those, though, I should mention the Purim connection. Regarding the
reading of the megillah, we all know that some cities, such as Yerushalayim, read the
megillah on the 15th day of Adar, as do all those areas that are close to them. R. Zvi
Pesah Frank was asked about areas of Jerusalem more distant from the Old City than a mil.
Using the gemara's standard, these places are not so close to the Old City that they
should be included, so they wanted to know what to do. Interestingly, R. Frank believed
that the original halakhah (that the areas close to a walled city join it in celebrating
the 15th) was because of lo titgodedu reasons. On that basis, he ruled that all those
areas that are part of Jerusalem (regardless of the walls) should now read on the 15th.
More practically for our purposes, there are three easily identifiable cases of lo
titgodedu:
1)Yom Tov Sheni-- When a Jew from Israel is in America (or anywhere hutz laAretz) for
Yom Tov, or vice verse (a hutsnik is in Israel for Yom Tov, and believes he is required to
observe two days), how does lo titgodedu affect that Jew's practice? It is well known (and
explicit in the gemara) that a Jew from Israel may not violate Yom Tov Sheni in hutz
laAretz, even in the privacy of his or her residence. That person is not, however,
required to actively keep Yom Tov-- make kiddush, etc. Interestingly, R. Moshe believes
that if that person is staying with relatives who will notice his or her not keeping Yom
Tov, the person must do everything that they do, so as not to differentiate him or herself
from the others.
Here, then, is lo titgodedu (or a derabanan value of avoiding mahloqet, but it's
related enough for our purposes) in action. However, surprisingly (and others disagree),
R. Moshe does not object to having minyanim for theother kind of davening. He did not
mind, in other words, if foreign Jews in Israel made a public second day minyan (as they
do); R. Moshe differentiates between performing melakhah and davening in public. It is not
a distinction I find convincing, and my belief is that those who believe they are
obligated to keep two days in Israel (or those who keep one day in America) need to daven
in private, and not to make any public display of their differences from the rest of the
community.
2)Nusah in Davening-- Once we have mentioned davening, it is worth noting that R. Moshe
rules that loudly davening with a different nusah than the common one in that shul is a
problem of lo titgodedu. If I find myself in a shul that follows nusah Sefard or perhaps
that is authentically Sephardi, R. Moshe does not believe that I must daven according to
their nusah, since I daven to myself and most of the differences are insignificant.
However, if I am going to lead the prayers, or daven loudly enough for others to hear, I
have to follow the home nusah. One place that this can come up is in the saying of
kaddish-- people who are saying kaddish tend to be those who make sure to find a minyan
(at least in our community), and sometimes will only find a minyan that follows a
different nusah. If the kaddish zugger (the person saying kaddish) wishes to say his own
nusah to himself, R. Moshe would not have a problem with that. What is a significant
problem, however, is if the person loudly follows his own nusah in a shul that follows a
different one. That, to my mind, is a problem of lo titgodedu.
3)Tefillin on Hol haMoed-- there was a time when shuls had clear minhagim about whether
or not to wear tefillin on Hol haMoed. For a shul that has such a minhag, R. Moshe is
nonetheless willing to permit someone to not wear tefillin in a shul where the minhag was
to wear tefillin (he did not believe that deviation from the norm rose to the level of
being a problem). He was not, however, willing to allow that person to daven from the amud
(lead the services) unless the person donned tefillin.
The point, I hope, is clear-- when we are in a place that has a minhag ahid, a joint
custom, it behooves us (halakhically) as guests in that community to follow their custom,
as long as it is a well-established one. Simply insisting on following our own is
certainly an etiquette problem and might even embroil a person in a de-oraita violation.
Shabbat Shalom.
