Categories: Halacha & Hashkafa / In Print

Daf Yomi

|

September 7, 2025, 5 AM ET

Print

A Convert’s Benefit ‘Blemishes Are Only Post Sinai’ (Horayos 10a) The baraisa on our daf derives from the verse “A man who shall have a blemish on the skin of his flesh...” (Vayikra 13:2) that a metzora is ritually defiled only in the instance where his affliction occurred after the revelation at Sinai. If, on the other hand, an individual was already afflicted before that time, he is not considered to be tamei. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah, Parshas Naso 7:1 and cited by Ran to Nedarim 7b s.v. “Shene’emar”) relates that when Bnei Yisrael stood at the foot of Mount Sinai ready to accept the Torah, Hashem miraculously healed all those who were sick or handicapped. Therefore, many of the commentators question the relevance of our baraisa’s exposition, for surely there remained none who were afflicted. Other commentators (Chok Nassan ad loc.; Mitzpeh Eisan to Nedarim 7b; Hagahos Maha’rid to Toras Kohanim, Parashas Tazria; and Klei Chemda to Parashas Shemos) note that the parsha of nega’im was first given sometime later than at Sinai. Thus, in their view, what is meant here, on our daf, is that if one was afflicted before the laws of blemishes (nega’im) were given, his present condition post that time is considered a continuation of the older condition and as such he would not be considered ritually defiled. According to their view, since all were healed at Sinai, afflictions after that time are considered a new affliction, thus rendering the afflicted individual tamei.

The Golden Calf

The She’elas Shalom (cited by Mitzpeh Eisan to Nedarim 7b) offers the following answer to the original question on the baraisa. There is a Midrash that when Bnei Yisrael sinned with the Egel, Hashem reinstated all of the illnesses and ailments from which He had previously healed them. Thus, the drasha of the baraisa relates to any who were previously healed since now their later occurrence is considered to be a reoccurrence of the earlier condition.

Banishment

He does acknowledge that Ran (to Nedarim 7b) appears to disagree with the above premise, as the Ran states clearly that a pre-Sinai affliction was subject to all the same restrictions and the sufferer must be banished to an area beyond the encampment for the duration of his affliction. Maharitz Chayos (to Nedarim 7b) seems to resolve this difficulty as in his view the person is not tamei but is nevertheless subject to banishment.

A Relevant Situation

Yet we are still left without any need for the baraisa’s drasha. Hafla’ah (cited in Panim Yafos to Parshas Tazria) offers that the exposition bears relevance to other cases, such as a ger who was afflicted before his conversion; we would now deduce that if his condition remained the same after his conversion, it is considered an ongoing affliction and he would not be considered to be tamei.