מסכת שבת פרק כלל גדול there is  question on the רמב''ם.He seems to be saying if one forgets all ל''ט אבות מלאכה and their ועונשן then he brings ל''ט חטאות.
Then in what way did he remember שבת?

The son of the רמב''ם, Avraham, said that you have to say the רמב''ם means either forgetting ל''ט אבות מלאכה or ועונשן but not both and all together. Or he forgot the תולדות.
ר' יוחנן אמר שגגת עונש שמה שגגה. ריש לקיש אמר שגגת עונש שמה מזיד.

I think the Gemara asked on the Mishna. Why does it specify the  ל''ט?  We can all count. It answers to tell us one is liable ל''ט offerings if he forgot all. And then it says that is good to ר' יוחנן but what about to ריש לקיש? In what way did he remember שבת at all? And I think it answers ריש לקיש אמר  תחום שבת ואליבא דר' עקיבא.
I mentioned off hand the problem about the רמב''ם to my learning partner.

He said there is no problem on the רמב''ם because it is a an קל וחומר. I can't figure out what he meant. I think what he means is that the קבוצה of all things that are obligated in a sin offering to ר' יוחנן is much larger that the קבוצה of ריש לקיש. In fact it includes everything in the קבוצה of ריש לקיש and then twice as much. So if something is in the קבוצה to ריש לקיש then  קל וחומר to ר' יוחנן and by definition then also to the רמב''ם.
But if this is what he meant I have  a question. To me it seems that the arrow goes the opposite way. To ריש לקיש a little knowledge is considered a lot. Knowing the עונש is enough to make him מזיד. That same knowledge to ר' יוחנן is considered small. So some small amount of knowledge to ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן might very well considered to be not enough to make him be considered as remembering שבת at all.

My approach is based on learning.
There are five basic things I think people ought to learn and finish. This idea is based to a large degree on what I was taught when I was in yeshiva. In fact in the first yeshiva I went to it was definitely clear that learning Torah is the highest Divine service.
And I accept this but I add to it Math and Physics for the reason that the Rambam includes Physics and Metaphysics in the category of Torah.

So these are the five
(1) The written Law, that is the Old Testament.
(2) The oral Law, that is the two Talmuds, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifri, Mechilta, Torat Kohanim
(3) Musar, that is the Musar books based on the approach of the Rambam and Saadia Gaon.
(4) Math
(5) Physics

If I would be consistent I would include the Metaphysics of Aristotle, but I would rather not include that on my list right now. If I would have perfect faith in the Rambam then of course I would include it but I am in general I little unhappy with philosophy.

This is my approach however it is based on what I saw in my parents. There was something so amazing and magical about the relationship between my parents that my brothers and myself have spent our whole lives wondering what it was and wishing we could duplicate it in our own lives.
So what you see in the above paragraph is my own take on what they were about. If you would ask my brothers they would say that yes I am right that Torah and and natural sciences were import to them but also family values and loyalty to family and also working at an honest job for a living and of course Classical Music. My Dad supported the Opera in  Los Angeles and obviously sent a check to Cal Tech every year

The basic rule about homosexuality is that of what is called an ערווה. Those are the forbidden relations of Leviticus. Most of them have the death penalty when done in front of two witnesses. If done accidentally then they have to bring a sin offering to the Temple in Jerusalem. If there is no Temple then they have to build it and then bring the sin offering.

People's opinions are not relevant as far as the Torah is concerned.
This rule does not change even if people desire to change the rule or transgress it. The reason for this is that the rules of the Torah are forever. They don't become nullified if someone keeps them o keeps them perfectly or disobeys them. They remain fixed. And these rules are in fact rules. They are not good advice. The reason Christians get mixed up with this  that many rules of the Torah are personal codes of conduct. Many are exactly what Christians think: moral rules. But not all of them are moral rules. Many are laws that are meant to be enforced by a court of law. and the Torah requires us to make courts of law to enforce these rules.  But that is the sole function of the courts.They can't make new rules. they can't add or subtract. They are allowed however to make temporary provisions in order that the rules of the Torah should not be infringed on.


Of course there are other rules in the Torah and it does take a good deal of effort to learn them.
For this reason I suggest having an hour session every day to get through the Oral and Written Law.
That is the Old Testament and the Talmud Bavli and the Jerusalem Talmud--page after page in order, from the beginning to the end.

Music written for the glory of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

i26  [i26 in midi format]

k18   [k18 in midi]

 n95  [n95 in midi]

It is hard to know how to go about learning Torah.

There is a general principle that to know any subject even half way decently you need at least 10,000 hours.
And if you are able that is the best thing to do with Torah. Find a yeshiva that does Torah ten hours a day and do that program for four years. Then you get 12000 hours. That is not enough however to become expert. It is just to get your feet wet.But if you have that basic four years under your belt then when later you go to college and work the foundation is laid for good work.

But even with that you start your own program at home. In theory it should not be hard. You get a regular Talmud Bavli with Tosphot and the Maharsha. You have one hour of in depth learning and then the rest of the time you just plow through it. Most tractates also have some major achron (authority after the Middle Ages) on them, Like the Yadot Nedarim on Nedarim.When I was doing Ketubot there were few achronim that I used. The major one was the Pnei Yehoshua. But I was alone in this. In both yeshivas that I was at [Shar Yashuv and the Mirrer in NY]  most people did not even look at achronim. They just prepared for the Rosh yeshiva's class and that was that. and in the afternoon they reviewed the class. And the classes were always along the lines of Chaim Soloveitchik.--which was kind of Rambam oriented.

But this Rambam approach seems to me to be more relevant to Halacha. I don't mean to downgrade it, but it seems  to me to be different that straight Gemara learning. As for Halacha I think it is a good thing to learn. What I think is the best to get the book of Chaim Soloveitchik on the Rambam along with the Avi Ezri of Rav Elazar Menachem Shach and just go through the Rambam  along with both of these two books. Then to do the Tur and Shulchan Aruch and the Aruch Hashulchan.
This is all great stuff but it is not the same as learning Gemara.

[With Rav Shach's book it is best just to plow through it straight. Not along side the Rambam.]

Music for the glory of God

j9

See this link Ideas in Bava Metzia

In כתובות you have to say that the טענת וודאי aspect of her טענה helps because if it was just her מיגו we say we don't say מיגו to take out money. So it is her מיגו with her weak טענת וודאי that takes out of חזקת ממון. There is not  a קל וחומר from that where there is a strong טענת וודאי but it is against a מיגו as in the case of רב יהודה with the two people in בית דין and one says you owe and the other says I don't know.





בכתובות צריכים  לומר שטענת וודאי שלה  עוזרת שאם זה היה רק ​​שיש לה מיגו אנחנו אומרים לא אומרים מיגו להוציא כסף.ואפילו לפי השיטה שאומרים מיגו להוציא זו לא אמורה כאן להיות הסיבה היחידה.  אז זה מיגו עם טענת וודאי חלשה שמוציא מחזקת ממון. אין קל וחומר מזה כשיש טענת וודאי חזק אבל נגד מיגו כמו בדיון של רב יהודה עם שני אנשים בבית דין ואחד אומר שאתה חייב ואחר אומר שאני לא יודע



This is just a quick review of something that was in my English note. Tosphot had said that there is a difference between a strong definite plea and a weak one. Rav Judah said when 2 people come to the beit din and one says you owe me 200 and the other says I don't know the definite plea wins.  But in Bava Kama we say money stays where it is until there is proof. The different is between a weak and string plea. But then in Ketubot there is a weak plea and Abyee says the law of Rav Judah is of  Shmuel. Then Abyee is pushed off. Then Tosphot says even with Abyee we have to say the aw of Rav Judah is the same as that of Shmuel. I am just showing how there is no way to show this to be the case. Rather I answered and explained Tosphot that they mean it is the same law. Not that one came from the other.