QUESTION: Reish Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan (13b) on what basis does the Mishnah in Megilah (2a) permit different groups of Jews to read Megilas Esther at different times. Why does the Mishnah's teaching not conflict with the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu" (Devarim 14:1), which forbids different groups of Jews from conducting themselves with differing Halachic practices?

After the Gemara cites numerous other examples in which there are different practices among the Jewish people, Abaye explains why those different practices do not conflict with the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu." The prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu" applies only to rulings issued by two courts in one city. When two courts in two different cities issue different rulings, the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu" does not apply.

Rava answers that "Lo Sisgodedu" applies only when one court in one city issues two different rulings; one half of the court rules one way and the other half rules another way. According to Rava, different rulings issued by two courts even in one city do not constitute "Lo Sisgodedu."

The answers of Abaye and Rava explain why Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel acted with different Halachic practices in their respective places (they were like two different courts). How, though, do their answers explain why "Lo Sisgodedu" does not apply to the reading of the Megilah? The villagers (Bnei Kefarim) read the Megilah on the "Yom ha'Kenisah," the days on which they come into the city (Mondays and Thursdays, when the courts convene), which may be a day other than the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar, the day on which the city-dwellers read the Megilah. The Chachamim enacted this leniency for the villagers (Megilah 4b) to enable them to hear the Megilah read by someone (a city-dweller) who knows how to read the Megilah (RASHI to Megilah 2a, DH Ela sheha'Kefarim). Consequently, two groups of Jews in the same city read the Megilah at two different times! According to Abaye, why does this not constitute a violation of "Lo Sisgodedu"? Similarly, according to Rava, if a city-dweller reads the Megilah for the villagers, it is akin to one court in one city doing two different practices. Why is it permitted?

(a) The ROSH (1:9) answers that, according to Rava, the villagers' Megilah-reading in the city on an earlier day is not comparable to one court that is split in its ruling, because the villagers do not have a city-dweller read for them. Rather, they read the Megilah for themselves, and the only reason why they read in the city is that in the villages they do not gather together for a Minyan. According to Rava, the villagers' Megilah-reading in the city is comparable to two courts in one city, and it does not constitute "Lo Sisgodedu."

How does Abaye, who maintains that there is a problem of "Lo Sisgodedu" when two courts in one city issue different rulings, answer the question? The RASHBA writes that the Gemara indeed could have asked this question on Abaye and said that his answer addresses only the other cases of different practices and not the question from Megilah.

(b) TOSFOS quotes RABEINU CHAIM who answers, based on the Yerushalmi, that when the Mishnah in Megilah says that the villagers read the Megilah on Mondays or Thursdays (and not necessarily on the fourteenth or fifteenth of Adar), it does not mean that they enter the cities to read, but rather that they read in their villages. They used to gather together in their synagogues on Mondays and Thursdays but not during the rest of the week. The Chachamim enacted that they may read in their villages on Mondays or Thursdays when they gather together in the synagogues. Therefore, even according to Abaye, the Mishnah's allowance for different groups to read the Megilah at different times is comparable to two courts in two different cities, and thus there is no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu."

The RASHBA adds that even if the villagers read the Megilah in the city, the city-dwellers and the villagers still can be considered like two courts in two different cities. The villagers' different appearance makes it evident that they are from the village, and everyone knows that they have a different practice. Their reading of the Megilah on a different date does not constitute "Lo Sisgodedu" because they are like a separate, small city inside the large city which has a different practice. The RAMBAN adds that they are like a separate city even when they are in the large city because they stay in a specific section of the city and everyone sees that they are separate from the rest of the city. (This approach also explains why there is no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu" even when a city-dweller reads for the villagers in the city, as Rashi in Megilah says.)

(c) The ROSH suggests another answer. The original enactment of when to read the Megilah stated that the Megilah may be read in different places on different days. The different practices pose no problem of "Lo Sisgodedu," because the enactment itself declared that in different places there should be different practices. The enactment applies to the place, not the person; the enactment states that places should act with different practices, and not that people should act with different practices.

The Rosh adds that according to this understanding, Reish Lakish's question from Megilah was not a valid question and that is why Rebbi Yochanan did not relate to it. Instead, Rebbi Yochanan told him that he should have asked from the different practices with regard to working on the day before Pesach. Rebbi Yochanan's intention was to show Reish Lakish that his question from Megilah was not valid, and that a valid question would have been from the different practices with regard to performing Melachah on Erev Pesach.

(d) The RASHBA explains that the question from Megilah is not from the practice of the villagers at all. Rather, the question is from the practice of the unwalled cities and the walled cities, who read the Megilah on the fourteenth and fifteenth, respectively. The villagers are able to read on the fourteenth if they want; they are not restricted to Mondays and Thursdays. When the Gemara in Megilah says that the Chachamim made an enactment as a leniency for the village people, it means that they allowed them to read on the "Yom ha'Kenisah" but did not require them to do so. Since they may choose to read on the fourteenth, everyone knows that when they read earlier they are not observing a different law, but rather they are merely taking advantage of the leniency which the Chachamim gave them.

Since Reish Lakish's question was from the different practices of reading on the fourteenth and fifteenth -- when the Megilah is read in two different places, the answers of Abaye and Rava are valid.

The Rashba infers from the words of Rashi (13b, DH Amina) that Rashi also understood Reish Lakish's question in this way. When Rashi explains the question, he writes that the problem of "Lo Sisgodedu" is from the fact that "some read the Megilah on the fourteenth and some read on the fifteenth."

QUESTION: The Gemara continues its discussion whether in practice people may follow different rulings of different authorities. The Gemara records the practice of Rebbi Avahu, who acted in a lenient manner when he was in the city of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (and carried a lamp on Shabbos), and acted in a stringent manner when he was in the city of Rebbi Yochanan (and did not carry a lamp on Shabbos). The Gemara asks what basis did he have to follow two opposing rulings.

The Gemara answers that Rebbi Avahu ruled in practice like the lenient view. The only reason he followed the stringent view was out of respect for Rebbi Yochanan who ruled that way.

The Gemara continues and asks what basis did he have to conduct himself stringently in one place and leniently in another, when his attendant will see him carry in one place and, as a result, will carry even in the place of Rebbi Yochanan. The Gemara answers that the attendant was informed about Rebbi Avahu's practice.

The Gemara is difficult to understand. How is the discussion of Rebbi Avahu's conduct related to the subject of the Sugya? The Sugya discusses the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu," the public divergence in Halachic practice, but this incident involves the contradictory acts of a single person.

Moreover, why does the Gemara assume that Rebbi Avahu never informed his attendant about his practice? It seems unlikely that he never taught the Halachah to his attendant and never told him that he was stringent only in the place of Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) The Gemara's question (and its reason for discussing the practice of Rebbi Avahu in the first place) is based on the conduct of Rebbi Avahu's attendant. The Gemara had no doubt that Rebbi Avahu acted stringently merely out of respect for Rebbi Yochanan. Rather, the Gemara's question is that some people may not realize why Rebbi Avahu changed his practice from place to place, and they might mistakenly learn from his conduct that one may be lenient even in a place where the practice is to be stringent. If Rebbi Avahu sought to show respect to Rebbi Yochanan, he should not have carried a lamp anywhere, even outside of the city of Rebbi Yochanan, so that the people accompanying him should not learn from him and assume that one is permitted to carry a lamp even in a place where the practice is to be stringent. The RITVA points out that this is the intention of RASHI.

(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (see also TOSFOS YESHANIM and RITVA) explains that if "Lo Sisgodedu" prohibits the people in one place from having two different practices, it should also prohibit one person from having two different practices in two places.

These two answers appear to disagree about the nature of the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu." Is the intent of the prohibition to prevent discord among the people, lest it appear as though they are not serving Hash-m together, or is the intent of the prohibition to prevent an affront to the honor of the Torah, lest its honor be lowered when people see two different practices observed?

Rashi understands that the prohibition of "Lo Sisgodedu" prevents discord among the people and prohibits doing something which gives the impression that the Jews follow two different sets of law. For this reason, he explains that the Gemara's question is that Rebbi Avahu's attendant might learn from Rebbi Avahu to conduct himself leniently even in a city that is stringent.

In contrast, the Tosfos ha'Rosh understands that the purpose of the prohibition is to prevent divergence in the observance of the Torah, which may cause dishonor to the Torah. The Tosfos ha'Rosh says that just as two people in one place may not have two different practices, one person is not permitted to have two different practices in two places. If one person is inconsistent in his conduct, he will cause the honor of the Torah to be diminished. The Gemara asks that when the attendant will see the differing practices of Rebbi Avahu, his respect for the Torah will be diminished.