Is a Gentile Who Converts Bound By Original Marriage Contract? Rebbi Akiva Eiger and the Nesivos

this Torah class is brought to you by Torah anytime.com okay good morning everyone d s uh Dadi we have a missish at the end of the eth parak and oh the end of the ninth peric really and the mission said as follows the mission says a whose father married him off so when the was written was meaningless when he remains living with the woman Thea remains intact why sh he keeps her with this condition that he wants to be bound by the original a convert that his wife converted IMI with him so he gave herba when he married her and now now that Cuba was as a now he's staying with her so why is the obligatory brings says he's only obligating himself to the Baseline 100 200 the not says even the fine you ready for rabha by now you know the CL any day you learn rer is a good dayer why does the Mish say that you're obligated in theba because he married her with the condition so here's the G Tony and Samantha they both convert now he is fival and she's Y and he says y I am marrying you so y says do I still get myba so Miss says yeah you still get yourba you know why he's marrying you to uphold the original agreement in other words when he's staying with her he's doing so with the stipulation of the original marriage says Rea let's say that factor is not true then he would not be obligated to give herba I don't understand the guy when he married her he said I'm GNA give you 200 Z so what exactly exempts him now why do I need a that but when he's marrying her and staying with her he's doing it on condition of the original Cuba let's say he's not let's say he's he's turning over a new leaf and he's marrying her not uncond conditioner of the original kba but he should still be bound by the original kba you know why because he bound himself back then so why is that not binding what a guy is not doesn't have Financial Obligations a gentile is not financially bound the bound himself he bound himself to her so why do I need because when he remarries her he does it to uphold the original condition I don't care whether he wants to or doesn't want to uphold the original condition he made the original condition so it's findinding a GU doesn't have responsibility if a GU creates AAR if a GU makes a he's not M of course he's M so why do I why does the M have to say why do I even need this and why is there uh in other words we hold that rabud says you're even in the and ra um run says no you're only in the Baseline what's of course you should be in the If he if the guy if Tony said to Samantha I hereby what's the lon I hereby declare you husband and wife until death do your part so Tony said lady I'm going to give you 200 Z and another 500 bucks asba so he's he's Bound by that why would R why would run say he's not bound by theba are not don't have to keep the word that's what became oh so maybe you'll say yeah Tony obligates himself to semantha but Tony never obligated himself to spra and Tony's obligated to Samantha but F's not obligated but of course I'm sure you remember from earlier on in the from we learned that only applies to those things that Jews and go are different in so then we say regarding this area you're a newborn person but if in this area there is no difference between Gentile and Jew you don't say that was we actually learned it in that the rule of is not across the board namely what's the if a man and woman have children and then they both convert do they have to have children again it's not P that they have to have children again why not why don't we say even though it is the answer is because since even though they're not by the way G do not have a MIT maybe they only the mitzah but they have some element of the Mitzvah so regarding this area we don't say because since Gentiles are performing a Good Deed by procreating so it's not like they revolutionize their identity in the area of procreation so we don't say when it comes to likewise the same way do if if Tony is Ming himself to Frank does Tony have to pay of course so regarding M there is no I do not know forget about why doesn't the obligation from the time that he's a go stand where do we ever see that a cannot be himself financially I Dr AI wants to say G is I would G does not apply here does not apply here question I have a question if let's say a g let's say a GU borrows money from a 500 people and he doesn't know what to do they're about to arrest him so he said I have a great idea I'll you know they come they say hey pal you owe a lot of people money no that was Tony I'm fival now he doesn't owe the people money anymore CU by the way most besides as far I said is only between that's a different Factor but I I always like the fact that I mention is is uh I like to use a lot that g is only if in that area you're different than you were as a guy fine so that's the what is answer no answer so we come to the saak the sa bakov was written by he asked the same why wouldn't this be even in the addition that he wrote to her why let's say this guy would obligate himself for a harlot's fee he would he would also be obligated yeah it's impossible to get out of this you can't say that a g when he converts it exempts him from his financial obligations you'd have a lot more converts says the N listen to this Whopper when a husband writes a Cuba to his wife what is he obligating himself in he's he's saying if we remain married and the only thing that stops it is our divorce or my death I'm going to give you akuba but let's say they don't remain married let's say the marriage is dissolved does he obligate himself in auba you can make a very strong case he's obligating himself in auba he's saying I marry you and if this is ever if I am the cause of it's sensation I'll pay you but what if the marriage does just dissolves doesn't have to give her a Cuba when this man converts he's not married to her anymore if he's not married to her he's not in her original Cuba he only obligated himself to give her a kba if they remain married until he divorces her or he dies but in this case they did not remain married because by his conversion it dissolves the marriage wow that's only if the marriage is not dissolved until the day they die they don't have isos but they have something called he she was lived with by the husband and that binds her the truth is their marriage is not dissolved until they die as soon as she converts she's like a newborn person so you say oh I don't owe you because you're a different person no that's not what he's saying he's saying that chin he's a new person she's permitted to someone else they made a stipulation I will pay you if this marriage ends because I die yeah but in this case that's provided the marriage continues until then but the marriage was dissolved before it was dissolved before meaning he says listen I I'm going to marry you now and as long as the marriage is not dissolved until I die I'll pay you but the thing is in this case the agreement was not adhere to they agreed to be married until until he dies and it wasn't uh it wasn't fulfilled because it was dissolved earlier in this case he would never obligated himself in that situation when he takes her back the original was abolished that is you know there are always many ways to answer a question this question when you hear the answer this is the answer can I can I can I ask a question about a different Mahal to answer a question perhaps do you have a different I mean I was thinking about it I'm sure there's an issue with it but I but I uh many okay that was taken on and that survives so he's clearly to her is that is in the nature of with all the that apply to so for example or the other of so is not the of M that clearly because as you said a can take upon himself of M uhuh but this actually is treated as a Cuba so for example if he has children with her they're going to be entitled to the Cuba been indifference even whereas if it just is treated as a regular fight that was taken on at some point in the past presumably it would not have to for example maybe there's other know okay but in that case in that case why would RAV say that he's not obligated in the to in other words it can't be that the is certain because uh we actually Pas that the agreed upon he's not you don't have to pay the to why not he obligated himself in it originally so that that that indicates that the financial obligation originally did cease right I guess youd have to type it that he is what what turns itself into the is only so you're going to say even RAV would say you are just a thing I guess but yeah pasas I mean the gamar quoted ABA right that you're not in the it means you're not yeah yeah who who is this what's your name Jonathan oh Jonathan how are you for the M but like let's say for instance even the that you are for the toas let's say rabi Huda I think everybody agrees you're not from the original date right you're not I think everybody agrees that it's a new obligation and you're not for that original date because that ceased but you would say no you maybe you maybe you are K from the original date umer to whether you're from the original maybe you could still say you're not from the original date because there's some there's some other words I don't know that why that's usually exclusive to this question about about's question is really I mean there's clearly a not Nance between a regular and a ofba so that's why was thinking along this Mahal because the answer to that it turns into obligation which is maybe different than but I hear the question about how do you explain the of Cu you know the way the way the asked the question is a bit more than rabar rear just says I don't I don't get why the mishna needs the logic ofas but Theus adds that why would you not be in the to right that's an added PR right which is pretty compelling question in other words um by the way the being being um dependent on the area of what you're speaking about in other words it's not across that we say there's talks about why have a hard life so thear wants to know um thear says well maybe it's because they don't keep the they didn't keep the to which the gar says well why that would why would that be a reason and thear gives other reasons maybe uhar gives a whole bunch of reasons the question is the the T who held it was because they didn't keep the he he he doesn't argue on the of it's just that he holds that does not apply to to the because regarding the there's no real difference between Jews and G so regarding this area we don't say it's a very interesting topic it happens very relevant to sh but you see here in theas he doesn't want to just use G it's only the Gus gu dissolves the marriage so now he no longer is obligating the okay RAB that's what I got for you today thank you very much thank you call see you bye oh guys I think I have to do the you've just experienced another Torah class brought to you by Torah anytime.com come