Halakhah su Deuteronomio 14:1

In the past, when the distance between communities was great, Ashkenazim lived in Ashkenaz (Germany), Sephardim in Sepharad (Iberia), and Yemenites in Yemen. Anyone who moved elsewhere would adopt the halakhic and liturgical customs of the new locale, since it is important that every individual community have a uniform custom and avoid the sort of factionalism that constitutes the prohibition of “lo titgodedu” (Devarim 14:1; the verse literally prohibits cutting oneself in mourning for the dead, but the Sages [Yevamot 13b] interpreted the prohibition to include becoming fragmented into different factions [“agudot agudot”]). As the Sages teach, this prohibition mandates that a single rabbinical court may not have some judges who follow the rulings of Beit Shammai and others who follow the rulings of Beit Hillel, so that the Torah is not made into two Torahs (ibid. 14a, according to Rif and Rosh).

Rav Metzger notes Chazal’s (Sifrei to Devarim 14:1 (Piska 96) and Yevamot 14a) interpretation of the Torah’s prohibition of “lo titgodedu” (Devarim 14:1) as a call “not to break into different groups but to act as one unit, Agudah Achat.” The Rambam (Teshuvot no.329) explains, “The entire House of Israel must … act as one unit, and there should not be any Machloket [dissent] in any matter. You wise individuals are aware of the punishment for Machloket and the many problems it causes.” Rav Metzger observes, “Regrettably, the topic of the dismantling of the Katif Strip was the subject of a bitter and painful communal Machloket within our nation. An enactment to eternalize this dismantling as a day of fasting and remembrance of the destruction is liable to add and magnify dissent within the nation. This too is a reason not to issue such a decree.”

From the roots of this commandment is like that which we said at the beginning - that one of the judged not go after his colleagues, but rather he should understand the things on his own. The reason is because it is possible that from this the case will sometimes be totally [decided] by the opinion of [only] one of them. Understand the matter, as it is such. And God, may He be blessed, did not want to give over a capital case to one opinion. But with the case of money - which is given to repayment - we are not concerned with all of this. And it is even given over to three from the outset, relying upon it being impossible that there not be any of them that did not study. And the rest of the things that we learned from it - such as the one who advocated innocence may not advocate guilt; that we do not open with guilt; and that we do not begin from the great one - all of it is out of the pity of God, may He be blessed, upon His creatures. [It is] metaphorically like a man who has pity on his children, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:10), "Children are you to the Lord, your God." And work upon yourself [to understand it] by way of a parable: If a man fathered a hundred and he built a city for them and placed them there, but saw that they would not survive in the community unless he decreed upon them that anyone who hits his neighbor would be punished with his money; and if he kills him, he shall be killed. And one of them got up and transgressed his decree [and killed another] - if he forgave him, behold, the community would be lost; as fear would not stay upon the [others. So] what is there for him to do and not see the death of his second son? He would nonetheless seek any way he can to exempt him according to the law. If he can, that is best, but if it is impossible in any way, he would command to kill him, so as to preserve the community [for] the others. And so is this matter - understand it.