Sotah 3a - Hating Fellow Jews, Osek B'mitzva

1. The gemara says that we need a special pasuk to be matir a husband giving kinuy to his wife. Without a pasuk being matir it would be a violation of the issur "לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך". Rashi (d.h. k'lfi) explains that this issur is not to do things that create machlokes, and giving kinuy to his wife will certainly incite her and cause machlokes (the Radal in the back of the gemara points out that even though the gemara says in pesachim that one is entitled to "hate" someone who does an aveira and there isn't a violation of hating him, that is only when they actually commited an aveira, to the exclusion of this case where he merely suspects her).

The Rambam writes in Hilchos Deios 6:5 - כל השונא אחד מישראל בלבו עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר "לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך" ואין לוקין על לאו זה לפי שאין בו מעשה, ולא הזהירה תורה אלא על שנאה שבלב אבל המכה את חבירו והמחרפו אע"פ שאינו רשאי אינו עובר משום לא תשנא

The Rambam clearly holds that the issur of לא תשנא is only violated if he hides his anger, but inciting machlokes through kinuy would not be a violation. How is the Rambam going to work out this gemara which clearly says that it would be a violation?

**************************************

2. In my sefer Nasiach B'chukecha (pg. 66, note 16) I quoted R' Tzvi Pesach Frank in the name of R' Shmuel Salant that if a person is involved in a mitzvah that he originally was not obligated to do, but by becoming involved he is now obligated, since he is fulfilling a mitzvah we apply the p'tur of osek b'mitzvah patur min hamitzvah. Therefore, even though a Talmid Chacham doesn't have to return a lost object that is beneath his dignity, if he starts returning it he must continue and therefore we would apply the principal of o'sek b'mitzvah patur.... (which is against the nesivos 72:7).

From Tosafos (3a bottom) we see a much bigger chiddush. Tosafos (based on Maharsha) explains that according to the opinion that it is a mitzvah for a kohen to be metamei for kerovim, then even if there are others available to bury the person so that he is not obligated to become tamei, if he chooses to involve himself in the burial it is not regarded merely as a reshus, but rather regarded as a mitzvah to the point that he will be exempt from another mitzvah that comes his way. We see from here that even a mitzvah which is just a kiyum mitzvah and not an obligation is strong enough to be considered osek b'mitzvah and exempt him from another mitzvah that comes his way.