How To Be God’s Children

The opening verses of Deuteronomy 14 develop the idea that the children of Israel are God’s children. As such, God commands that His people, like the kohanim (priests), must not deface themselves in mourning for the dead:

You are children of the Lord your God. You shall not gash yourselves (lo titgodedu) or shave the front of your heads because of the dead. For you are a people consecrated to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you from among all the peoples on the earth to be His treasured people. (Deuteronomy 14:1–2)

The word titgodedu refers to the practice of deliberately gashing one’s flesh until it bled, a customary expression of mourning throughout the ancient Near East and one that was not unknown among the ancient Israelites. (See J. Tigay, Deuteronomy 1–16, Mikra L’Yisrael, pp. 395–396.)

The verb lehitgoded (to gash oneself), however, intrigued the rabbis and inspired an interpretation that moved well beyond the verse’s peshat, or plain meaning. We encounter this creative play on language already in a midrash from the Mishnaic period:

“Do not cut yourselves (titgodedu)—do not form factions (agudot). Rather, all of you should constitute a single united group. As Scripture likewise says: He has established His band (agudato) upon the earth (Amos 9:6).

Another interpretation: Do not cut yourselves—do not cut yourselves according to the practices of those who gash themselves, as it is said of the prophets of Baal: And they cut themselves after their custom (1 Kings 18:28).” (Sifre Devarim 96, Finkelstein ed., p. 158)

The second interpretation remains faithful to the verse’s plain meaning, reading it as a prohibition against adopting pagan mourning rites. The first, however, departs dramatically from the biblical context. It interprets titgodedu as though it were derived not from the root gimel daled daled (“to cut”) but from alef gimel daled (“to bind together” or “to form a group”). Through this imaginative wordplay, the verse is transformed from a prohibition against foreign mourning customs into an ethical imperative to preserve the unity of the Jewish people.

The Talmud takes this derashah seriously and explores the extent of its legal application. While never questioning the verse’s original prohibition against self-laceration in mourning, it asks how far the additional prohibition against forming factions (agudot) should extend. In a famous debate, the Talmud presents a disagreement over the scope of the law. One opinion (Rava) understands the prohibition broadly, maintaining that a single court may not contain judges who issue contradictory halakhic rulings on the same matter, since such visible disagreement undermines communal unity. The other opinion (Abaye), by contrast, limits the prohibition to the existence of competing courts in the same city issuing conflicting rulings. Diversity of opinion within a single court is not, in his view, what the Torah prohibits. (See Yevamot 13b–14a.)

Their disagreement reflects two different conceptions of communal unity. Rava emphasizes the importance of presenting a coherent public legal voice, while Abaye places greater value on preserving legitimate pluralism within the halakhic process, provided that recognized judicial institutions remain intact. The debate has had lasting implications for Jewish law, shaping discussions about the coexistence of different customs (minhagim), multiple batei din, and the delicate balance between preserving communal unity and respecting legitimate halakhic diversity.

This, of course, is a debate with far-reaching implications. How do we maintain a meaningful sense of unity while allowing for legitimate disagreement? Are there limits to pluralism? Are there boundaries that define communal unity? These questions have challenged Jewish communities throughout history and remain no less urgent today.

The peshat of the Torah verse calls upon each individual to refrain from practices incompatible with being one of God’s children. The rabbis, however, discerned within the same verse a broader communal imperative: to prevent divisions and rivalries that could fracture the Jewish people and ultimately distance them from God. One interpretation addresses individual conduct, the other communal cohesion. Together they remind us that preserving the covenant requires both personal holiness and the difficult work of sustaining a united people despite their differences.