Daf Hashavua Iyun Sugya Yevamos 48b - The Kli Chemda's Lomdus of Ger She'nisgayer K'katan She'nolad

this Torah class is brought to you by Torah anytime.com okay um good morning everyone we continue in the uh today today we have uh somewhat of an outof thebox topic if we have time we're going to see a second subject as well um firstly we uh we mentioned yesterday in the kazara the on the bottom of tells us a story that and were sitting on the porch of so we had a why do we need to know that they were sitting on the porch who cares where they were sitting so we had a big yesterday thear is teaching you what are porches for you know you might think porches are for barbecuing or for hammock no porches are for learning that's a good from Testament base but then the gar brought an interesting we learned in the son of says why are afflicted says because they were not to which says what do you mean they were that they may not have fulfilled the but once they convert they're like a newborn creation and the same way they could marry their sister or they could marry a relative because they're not related they're also not responsible for previous activity so the brings another because they're not knowledgeable about the particulars of various mitv so my question is what does r the son ofam hold he agrees there's a concept of so why would he say that are responsible for not keeping the well uh maybe they would have been punished when they were but now they're Jews and now they're not responsible anymore because that was a previous existence in other words does disagree with the concept of that's a concept that everybody holds like everyone agrees when a brother and sister convert M so they could marry each other so why would he say that they're responsible for their previous activities so this is a question I had many years ago and I want to um suggest the following approach and you'll tell me what you think um it's based on something I once saw in the I saw it many years ago let's see if I could bring it up over here no it didn't send oh let's see if I could bring it up here okay it just went um here it is okay could you see so this comes from the of platki who is a tal of the ad and he's referring to a certain comment of the the hisama learns that when the Jewish people stood on har they had din of G and adami and therefore they were allowed to stay married to their relatives because um we know that many many Jews were married to relatives before the Torah was given and after the Torah was given only M had to separate from his spouse but not the other Jews on the other hand do say that after mat were they were crying over their families which seems to mean that they did have to separate from their spouses and the discusses well why did they have to separate from their spouse so they should be allowed in other words let's say did amam have to separate from he was married to his aunt or do we say look so seem to indicate that in fact did have to separate because they were so the the bottom line is learns that once we came to let's say something about it you ready for this we're gonna we're going to have to learn another but there's a let's say a guy and his wife Jim and Jane were married and they had 22 children and then they decide to convert so do they have to have more children right or they or do we say they're already m in the M of puru so says they had children so they were theah says no they uh they were not now what we would like to do is why would say that they were M the mitvah but those children are not attributed to them the of may help us understand the of R the son of RA because says if have children they don't have to have more children when they convert because we don't apply the rule of G so so says that when the Jews were they were required to have more children because whatever children they had before were children they had as go and now they're Jews so they have to have more children says the it would seem to be very simple that were the mitah ofu with the children they had before mat even though holds that when they convert they have to have more children says let's learn let us proceed by introducing the we find over there if someone had children when they were say not why that's one and then says they go according to their reason because we learned let's say you had kids when you were in other words if you had children when you were a guy and then you have another child that child is not you already had children you didn't have children before and says why do I need both statements of in other words they both seem to be saying the same thing doesn't subscribe to and need both of them because if it would just say that holds that your the then says you get because in the beginning even as a also included in the MIT so that's why holds that whatever children you had as count for the mitah because as a also have the mitah which by the way we're going to have to ask because do not have the mitzah you know that there's no mitzah we'll have to address that because hasem did tellish was not Jewish but thean says that any mitvah that was told to and then repeated to is only to and not to the so would just say the second then says there's no din of when it comes but when it comes to Children maybe would agree to that's why I need both now what does it mean are now we see two important things one of them is most critical the gar says that because so when they convert perhaps we don't say what do we see from here because is not in across the board idea it's if regarding this detail you're a new creation so for that detail you're a new creation but if but if um but if regarding my volume is off you can't hear me you hear yeah oh I don't hear you uh somebody want to say something I wanted that don't don't go have obligation toate learn from right so yeah the the mishna says in G that um all of man kind has a Mitzvah of but that's not the Mitzvah so in other words all of man has the m to populate but and then by the way applies to women also but women don't have a mitah only men have a mitzah the says because puru hurts it's a very painful Mitzvah so God doesn't give a Mitzvah that hurts so man has a Mitzvah a woman doesn't have a Mitzvah so technically the man the man has to get married the man has to marry the woman the woman doesn't have the Mitzvah to get married she has a Mitzvah of she doesn't have Mitzvah Okay so the question is what does the gamar mean that okay so the the point I'm trying to bring in bring out is that dummies not across the board oh you became Jewish so now everything in your previous existence doesn't count no only regarding the things that you're now a new person are you a new person so regarding any Mitzvah that you now have that you didn't have before you're a new being but regarding those Mitzvah that you had before we don't say that's what holds that the children you had as count for when you're Jewish because have the so what does it mean have the says God said be fruitful and multiply says we have to understand what do you mean was said to okay I I didn't say the rule correctly it was said to it was not repeated to is so the rule inan is any Mitzvah given to and not repeated to the Jewish people only applies to the Jewish people does not apply to the Ben but it was said to therefore it's only said who cares the truth is before the tah was given but once the Torah is given only Jews have even though regarding many things we do say in other words doesn't agree to the rule it does not dispute the rule of ACC to since as a they were says since as a go they were even though now those children are not after them you're um from the mitu so the says what's he talking about how could you say they they're not commanded as so how could they be exempt from the Mitzvah of puru if they never had that Mitzvah as a so the says you have to say since they were benu now when were they benu 3,400 years ago before the Torah was given true afterwards the mitah was taken away and given to a Jew that's only the was taken away but the guy who has children is the same way a woman is even though she's not so say very interesting that even though we say that any mitvah said to not repeated to the Jewish people applies only to the Jewish people not to that is the applies to the Jewish people and not to but the applies to as well and if they're so they're allowed to do that Mitzvah as discretionary and if they're M that mitvah it's considered like they're performing a Mitzvah like women according to the opinions women are like by the way the says the same to relatives right we know the ra says there's a concept that you could do not to what is that it's not a it's a which is therefore says even today even though they're not in theah they're ah this is what means that even though regarding many things even would agree but regarding would not hold of in other words we had a but why why don't we say and therefore the children you had you had as and that should not allow you to continue to fulfill the Mitzvah as a Jew so what seems to hold is that since as a you didn't have the but you had the therefore in the realm of we do not apply because you didn't make a major change in the realm of that was something you're always by the way now this is the this is the Nugget that I want to pull out from here the is based on what's found in the is only regarding those things that things changed from when you're a guy regarding those things that didn't change we don't say so this is what means regarding holds it's not considered because even before they were the not as but as a and therefore your and what does Rish hold Rish would say that even though have the but they don't have the so there was a major change in the realm of and therefore we say that the reasoning of who holds that even regarding that even if you're going to say that to be when you're a and he gets as if you're since now you have a that's and since it's a therefore we say and but okay fine now based on that the wants to argue on the wanted to say that whatever children the Jewish people had before the tar was given don't count according after the Torah was given because the Jewish people converted that's only if you go from a go to a Jew because you're going from discretionary Mitzvah to obligatory Mitzvah but the Jews before the T was given had a in puru and after the Torah was given they also have a so there's no change in the realm of puru from before the Torah was given to after and therefore even Rish would agree that the kids the Jews had before the Torah was given count for them for after the was given this this only applies to a gar that converts after the Torah was given because you're going from discretionary to obligatory regarding this because they never changed even if you're going to say that a Jew by a of G but regarding nothing ever changed because they're always now let us based on this try to explain this why does hold that a go is responsible for failure to the Mitzvah of the and they're liable even when they're a Jew and I think uh I think it's pretty clear now that would he say I don't hold of no we can't say that right because says on that everybody holds of but I think theot is regarding the did anything change in the life of this individual in other words we we just learned that is not in all across the board it's only if regarding this detail you have a change so then we could say you're a new being regarding this detail but when somebody becomes a Jew are there major changes in the realm of not really you weren't allowed to kill before you're allow to kill now you weren't allowed to swear falsely before you're not to FY now you weren't allowed a murder before you're you're not a murder now so there's no real change in the sh therefore he could say why do G have a hard life because they didn't keep what do you mean yeah but that only applies regarding in where these were not Aros before as a and now they are so in that realm there's a new change but in the realm of there is no new change and what would hold says you're not responsible for failure to be because maybe says there is a big change in the namely beforehand if you didn't keep the and now you're not say but for some of them you are yeah but you didn't need Witnesses and you didn't you didn't need uh warning right for the when a go violates the it's much easier to hold them liable to death penalty than for a Jew so maybe would say there is a categorical difference even in the realm of observance of from being a to being a Jew that's perhaps an approach to explain the and why do it say like a fact that they did not keep the the no then know why why it seems to be like it's like for sure they didn't keep it maybe they did keep it it seems to be like they're for sure they did not keep it good question perhaps because the rambam says that if a guy keeps thez but he keeps it because he thinks it's just and right he still he's not considered observing the you have to keep it because God one second the right in other words you have to keep the sh because gave so maybe what's the likely you know we could assume that a but you're saying Maybe not maybe you have real noahides you know you have uh you do have no that keep the back in the day you had okay it's a good point to think of to to think about you've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by Torah anytime.com