Charactar of the Tribes Shimon and Levi

Shimon was not mentioned in the Brachos of Parashat "Vezot Habracha". One of the reasons given is that Shimon did not receive a Nachala in Israel as the other tribes did but rather got disparate cities within the chelek of Yehuda.

Rashi mentions that Shevet Shimon were scribes and would travel around teaching Torah to the people. Shevet Levi also did not have a Nachala and also traveled the land and farms collecting Terumos and Ma'asros.

In Yaakov Avinu's Brachot he mentions Shimon and Levi as brothers in arms who do not deserve a Nachala in Eretz Yisroel because of their aggressiveness in dealing with Shechem when the Shecemites took their sister Dina prisoner.

If Shimon and Levi had negative character traits to the extent that because of those traits they were not allowed an inheritance in the land of Israel it seems strange that they specifically became the two tribes that were asked to disseminate the word of God throughout the land.

Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky explains that what Shimon and Levi did to Shechem was in fact a very noble deed. They were the only brothers that took matters into their hands to save their sister. None of the other tribes did anything to save Dina. Yaakov Avinu was upset over their over-aggressive style in dealing with the problem but recognized them for their noble character traits. What was needed was a way to inculcate the other tribes with Shimon and Levi's better character and empathy on one hand but shield them from Shimon and Levi's ability to strong arm others.

This was accomplished by, on one hand, not allowing Shimon and Levi to have a distinct inheritance. Without land their power is severely diminished, but on the other hand having them travel the land lecturing Israel would allow them to influence others to become more empathetic.

Segulot

וכי ידיו של משה עושות מלחמה או שוברות מלחמה אלא לומר לך כל זמן שהיו ישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתגברים ואם לאו היו נופלים כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר כא) עשה לך שרף ושים אותו על נס והיה כל הנשוך וראה אותו וחי וכי נחש ממית או נחש מחיה אלא בזמן שישראל מסתכלין כלפי מעלה ומשעבדין את לבם לאביהם שבשמים היו מתרפאין ואם לאו היו נימוקים

What more can one say about segulos? The mishna in Rosh Hashana is saying that there is no such thing as a segula even if it is mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Even the Torah Segulos have a deeper meaning which lead people closer to God!!

Kohelet and its Contradictions

אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו מפני שתחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה תחילתו דברי תורה דכתיב (קוהלת א) מה יתרון לאדם בכל עמלו שיעמול תחת השמש ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי תחת השמש הוא דאין לו קודם שמש יש לו סופו דברי תורה דכתיב (קוהלת יב) סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלהים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם מאי כי זה כל האדם אמר רבי <אליעזר> [אלעזר] כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה ר' אבא בר כהנא אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה שמעון בן זומא אומר לא נברא כל העולם כולו אלא לצוות לזה ומאי דבריו סותרין זה את זה כתיב (קוהלת ז) טוב כעס משחוק וכתיב (קוהלת ב) לשחוק אמרתי מהלל כתיב (קוהלת ח) ושבחתי אני את השמחה וכתיב (קוהלת ב) ולשמחה מה זה עושה לא קשיא טוב כעס משחוק טוב כעס שכועס הקב"ה על הצדיקים בעוה"ז משחוק שמשחק הקב"ה על הרשעים בעולם הזה ולשחוק אמרתי מהלל זה שחוק שמשחק הקב"ה עם הצדיקים בעולם הבא ושבחתי אני את השמחה שמחה של מצוה ולשמחה מה זה עושה זו שמחה שאינה של מצוה ללמדך שאין שכינה שורה לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר שמחה של מצוה שנאמר (מלכים ב ג) ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה' 

What does it mean that it contradicts itself? Was King Shlomo Drunk? Why is contradictory statements a reason for geniza? if its wrong its wrong but it it is correct it should not be nignaz?

A possible pshat in the above quoted Gemara might be that  we must obviously assume that Kohelet was not contradicting himself,. Even if Kohelet is self contradictory or appears to be is not a reason in and of itself to be nignaz. The problem is that readers will not understand and not objectively look to find the answers to the contradictions. Chazal were not concerned that the readers that do not find the answers would leave it at that and have questions. Chazal were concerned that readers would likely find their own biased interpretations in Kohelet because of its many contradictions and use Kohelet as a justification for their misguided opinions. One of the biggest issues we face today is that almost all misguided agenda-driven groups in the contemporary Jewish world use sources in Chazal to justify their actions. Chazal (ironically?) were worried that Kohelet would be to fertile a territory to let these agenda seeking factions have free rein. However, because Kohelet made it clear that ultimately "Zeh kal Ha'adam" Chazal felt that even a non-objective reader of Kohelet would have to admit that all agendas have to strive towards that common goal, their misconstruations would be mitigated.

Lo Tachanifu

Gemarah Eiruvin 18b ואמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר מקצת שבחו של אדם אומרים בפניו וכולו שלא בפניו מקצת שבחו בפניו דכתיב (בראשית ז) כי אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני בדור הזה כולו שלא בפניו דכתיב (בראשית ו) נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורות
see Rashi and Maharsha.

Question: how can one be Machnif to hkb"h and why is "Libo Gas" any better?

Parshas Masei Perek 35 pasuk 31-33 see Rashi "Lo Sachanifu" Lo Tarshiu-see Onkelus
See Ramban there "Inyan Hachanifa" that Chanifa is doing the opposite than what appears should be done. And the Ramban continues quoting the Sifri "Azhara Lachanfin".

The Ramban is really going Lishitaso. The Ramban argues on the Rambam at the end of Shoresh 5 in Sefer Hamitzvos and says that the Issur of "Lo Tachanifu" should have been counted in the Minyan Hamitzvos because it is not only a reason for "Lo Tikchu Kofer" but actually a forbidden act of flattering a murderer.

The Gemara in Sota 41A tells a story of King Agripas and how the Israelites were punished because they flattered him (She'hechinifu lo Le'Agripas)

The Gemara in Sota continues תנא משמיה דרבי נתן באותה שעה נתחייבו שונאי ישראל כלייה שהחניפו לו לאגריפס אמר ר' שמעון בן חלפתא מיום שגבר אגרופה של חנופה נתעוותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים ואין אדם יכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך דרש ר' יהודה בר מערבא ואיתימא ר' שמעון בן פזי מותר להחניף לרשעים בעולם הזה שנאמר (ישעיהו לב) לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב ולכילי לא יאמר שוע מכלל דבעולם הזה שרי ר' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מהכא (בראשית לג) כראות פני אלהים ותרצני ופליגא דרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי משל של יעקב ועשו למה הדבר דומה לאדם שזימן את חבירו והכיר בו שמבקש להורגו אמר לו טעם תבשיל זה שאני טועם כתבשיל שטעמתי בבית המלך אמר ידע ליה מלכא מיסתפי ולא קטיל ליה אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה מביא אף לעולם שנא' (איוב לו) וחנפי לב ישימו אף ולא עוד אלא שאין תפלתו נשמעת שנאמר (איוב לו) לא ישועו כי אסרם:  סימן א"ף עוב"ר גיהנ"ם ביד"ו ניד"ה גול"ה:  ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן מקללין אותו שנא' (משלי כד) אומר לרשע צדיק אתה יקבוהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים ואין קוב אלא קללה שנא' (במדבר כג) לא קבה אל ואין לאום אלא עוברין שנא' (בראשית כה) ולאום מלאום יאמץ ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה נופל בגיהנם שנא' (ישעיהו ה) הוי האומרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע וגו' מה כתיב אחריו לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה וגו' ואמר רבי אלעזר כל המחניף לחבירו סוף נופל בידו ואם אינו נופל בידו נופל ביד בניו ואם אינו נופל ביד בניו נופל ביד בן בנו

Tach It is hard to understand how the Gemara can say that something that the Torah explicitly forbids is permitted even if "Lo Tachanifu" is not included in the Taryag mitzvos it is still forbidden??

Tosfos on the Sugya in Sota is also hard to understand. Tosfos in D"H "Oto Hayom" asks what was the flattery to Agripas if he in fact was Jewish because his mother was Jewish, Tosfos answers that that to be a king there is a Din "Mikerev Achecha" which would make a king more stringent than a regular Jew and necessitates his being of a Jewish father too. Tosfo goes further to say that even if they couldnt protest the king for fear of their lives they should have at least remind silent and not flattered him and the punishment for flattery is that Aveira of fearing the King rather than fearing God who does not allow an non-Jewish king. What does Tosfos mean when he says the "Aveira of Chanifa"? Furthermore when the Gemara says later that if you flatter your fellow man you will eventually fall before him, Tosfos explains that this is only when the flatterer is not in danger however when he is in a dangerous situation he may flatter the other person. This seemingly contradicts Tosfos here that says that the whole Aveira of Flattery is when he fears the person instead of fearing God?

It seems obvious that there must be two dinim/Halachos of the issur of Chanifa.

1. The issur De'oraysa of Chanifa or as translated "Flattery" as the Chofetz Chaim writes in his forward to his book Chofetz Chaim that if one speaks ill of another in order to find favor in his friends eyes he is transgressing the issur of "Lo Tachanifu". This issur is obviously not going to apply if one is in a danger situation and he needs to flatter to survive. This issur is also brought down in the sefer Yireim 55 and is listed in the Yire'ims minyan hamitzvos and he writes there that this issur does not apply in a "Makom Sakana" and this is mentioned in the Magen Avraham in a halachik context that there is no issur of Lo Tachanifu if the flatterer is endangered. This is more of an issur like "nekama" where it is only forbidden if you are doing it for the specific purpose of flattering a person that is non-deserving of your flattery for that purpose alone but if you have other motivations or if you are in danger as just mentioned then there is no issur.

2. There is another issur of Chanifa which is really the issur of being "Machzik yedei Overei Aveira" giving support to sinners through flattery. This issur applies even out of fear in a dangerous situation. The machlokes  of the Amoraim is in this halacha if it is in fact applicable even in a "makom Sakana". This is the issur discussed in Sota regarding king Agripas. (this issur can possibly explained as the anti-Hocheoch Tochiach, where you are actually supporting bad deeds rather than protesting them).

The issur of מקצת שבחו that one must only say partial praise of a person when he is in his presence is  if he mentions that persons full praise that would be considered flattery or forbidden because it is as if  he is being flattered (kind of a de'rabanan vs the issur de'oraysa of non-deserved flattery), this issur would apply even to Hkb"h. with regard to the Maharsha in Eiruvin.

אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן מקללין אותו שנא' (משלי כד) אומר לרשע צדיק אתה יקבוהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים ואין קוב אלא קללה שנא' (במדבר כג) לא קבה אל ואין לאום אלא עוברין שנא' (בראשית כה) ולאום מלאום יאמץ

oThis first din of Chanifa that we said is De'oraysa is more a din of Middos between a person and hisself in that he is allowing himself to be misled for some ulterior purpose. This is the reason that even facing Hkb'h it is assur and we say the din of miktzas shvacho. A fetus is in a certain sense on the same level. Generally when an ubar is mentioned in Chazal (Maharal) it is referring to man who has the ultimate potential. (he learns all of torah etc) even the ultimate man realizes that flattery is wrong, not because he is not worthy of the praise but because the flatterer has no business voicing it to make himself liked by others.

The sefer Shaarei Teshuva 181 also quotes the gemara with the story of Agripas and states that it is assur even in a dangerous situation to flatter. The Shaarei Teshuva brings Agrippas and not the pasuk because he is referring to the second din of Chanufa that we discussed above.

Baal Tosif

The Rambam in Hilchos Lulav Perek 7 states that if one adds an extra Lulav or other min (besides for Hadas) he is oiver on the isur of ba'al Tosif and the lulav is pasul. The question that arises is why is it that the Mitzva is pasul just because he does an aveira of ba'al toisif?

The Rambam Le'shitaso says the same thing in Hilchos Tzitzis perek 1 halacha 15 that if one makes an extra gdil on his beged of arba kanfos that begad cannot be fixed anymore even if he takes off the extra gdil of tzitzis off the beged it is b'egeder ta'aseh velo min ha'asuy and the beged will remain pasul forever until he takes it off and makes new tzitzis. The Ra'avad on both Rambam's is masig, he argues at length. Although it is not so clear what the main point of his argument is, the Aruch Hashulcan in Hilchos Tzitzis says that this is exactly the main point of contention. The Ra'avad does not agree that just because you did an Avaira of Ba'al Toisif that the mitzvah itself should be pasul both by lulav and by tzitzis.

(forgetting about all the Torah with regard to lulav tzarich eged and therefore if you can say "hai lechuday kahiy v'ehaiy lechudei kahiy") we still need a simple explanation and to why ba'al toisif pasils a mitzvah)

This can be explained with a svara that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein expounds upon in Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 13 regarding wearing two pairs of tfillin. Rabbi Moshe is discussing the Rash that says that you can wear two pairs of tfillin, the gemara that states that it is ba'al Toisif, and the mishneh limelech that discusses the rambam with regard to the difference between two lulavim and two pairs of tfillin. Rav Moshe says that the reason you are not oiver ba'al toisif if you decide to make a 614th mitzva is because ba'al toisif is only when you are adding on to an existing mitzvah but not just adding a mitzva. (my brother in law claims that the vilna gaon in aderes eliyahu says explicitely that there is an issur of ba'al toisif in that situation and he based his son's bar mitzva pshetel on the concept of two types of ba'al toisif, one changing a mitzvah and the other one, adding a new mitzvah). Rav Moshe goes further to say that the reason that one who sleeps in the succah on shmini atzeres is oiver on ba'al toisif and one who sleeps in the succah on any other day of the year is not is  because you have to not only add to an existing mitzvah in order to be oiver but also you must fundamentally change the existing mitzvah by adding to it.

Using this theory we can now possibly understand the Rambam. the Rambam understands ba'al toisif like R' Moshe explains that it is a fundamental change in the mitzvah accomplished by adding to the mitzvah but still a change. This change is and has to be extensive enough that the mitzvah is not recognizable anymore and therefore pasul. Even thogh ba'al Toisif is an aveirah that should have nothing to do with the kashrut or paslut of the mitzva itself if the addition adds so much that the mitzah is changed then we can understand that it should be pasul.