Shabbat 61b (סא:) — the Talmud in English

An armband or

a ring, and he went out wearing it in the public domain, due to the concern of appearance

so that people would not say that he was going out wearing it as an ornament, which is prohibited.

And we raise an objection:

And it was taught in a beraita: What is an established amulet? —

Any amulet that healed three people at once.

This implies that if it healed one person three times, it is still not considered established, and this is difficult from the earlier beraita, which taught: Any amulet that healed, and then healed again, and then a third time—even one person—is considered an established amulet.

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that was taught—that an amulet that healed three people is established—is with regard to

establishing the person—

that the person becomes established with regard to all types of amulets in the world when he healed three people suffering from three illnesses by means of three different types of amulets.

This

that was taught—that when the same person healed, and then healed again, and then a third time—is with regard to

establishing the amulet—

the amulet becomes established when it heals three people, or one person three times from the same illness. Even if the same incantation was written by three healers, and each of them healed one ill person, this incantation becomes established as an amulet immediately, regardless of who writes it.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me

that when

three

different

amulets

are used

for three people,

and each incantation healed

each of the three three times,

each of them three times, even one person, then in such a case

the person is established

with regard to all amulets in the world, since three different amulets of his were effective; and also

the amulet is established—

each of these three amulets becomes established immediately, regardless of who writes it, since it healed three times.

Rav Pappa also considered it obvious: If he wrote

three amulets for

the healing of

three people,

and his amulets were effective

once each

for each amulet, then only

the person is established

with regard to all types of amulets in the world, since three different amulets of his were effective; however,

the amulet is not established,

since each amulet was effective only once.

If he wrote

one amulet

and it was effective

for three people,

all of whom suffered from the same illness, then only

the amulet is established

for that illness, regardless of who writes it; however,

the person is not established

with regard to another amulet for a different incantation and a different illness.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Three amulets

for three types of illness

for one person—

what is the law?

The amulet—

certainly is not established,

since each amulet was effective only once.

Rather, Rav Pappa was uncertain concerning

the person,

who wrote these three amulets:

is he established or is he not established?

Do we say: This person healed him

through three different amulets written by the same person?

Or perhaps, it was the fortune of this person

the ill person

who was receptive to the writing,

so that an amulet was effective for him?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

They raised a dilemma before them: Amulets—

do they have sanctity, or perhaps they do not have sanctity?

And we inquire:

With regard to what halakhic matter

did we raise this doubt?

If you say it is with regard to rescuing them from a fire

on Shabbat, like other sacred writings, so that they did not require that one avoid the great exertion prohibited on Shabbat in rescuing them, nor did they require an eruv when carrying them into an alley that is not open at both ends, where there is no eruv .

Come and hear

that it was taught in a beraita:

The blessings

that the Sages instituted, such as the prayer of Rosh Hashanah, which in its Musaf service contains verses of Kingship, Remembrances, and Shofarot,

and amulets, even though they contain letters,

and many subjects from the Torah,

as people would write verses of healing in an amulet—the Sages said that

they are not rescued

on Shabbat

from a fire,

because their sanctity is lesser than the sanctity of sacred writings.

And they are burned where they are.

It necessarily follows that we did not raise the doubt concerning the sanctity of amulets with regard to permitting their rescue on Shabbat.

Rather,

the doubt is

with regard to

the obligation of

geniza,

if they possess it.

Come and hear

that it was taught in a beraita:

If

the Name of God was written

on the handles of vessels or on the legs of a bed—

he must cut it,

cutting off the place where the Name of God is written,

and place it in geniza.

Accordingly, amulets in which the Name of God is mentioned must also be placed in geniza. Why, then, did they raise a doubt whether they possess sanctity?

Rather,

the doubt is whether it is permitted

to enter a lavatory with them.

What is the law?

Is it that

they possess sanctity, and it is prohibited

to enter a lavatory with them?

Or perhaps they do not possess sanctity, and it is permitted.

Come and hear

that we learned in our Mishna:

And he may not

go out on Shabbat

with an amulet when it is not from an established expert.

And we infer: An amulet

from an established expert—

he may go out with it.

And if you say that amulets possess sanctity,

and it is prohibited to enter a lavatory with them, why did they permit going out with them on Shabbat? After all,

there are times when he requires

the wearer of the amulet

to go to the lavatory

and remove the amulet,

and

afterward

he might come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Since they did not take this possibility into consideration, it is proven that it is permitted to enter a lavatory wearing an amulet.

And we reject this: There is no proof from the Mishna, because

here

it is referring

to an amulet of ingredients,

which does not possess sanctity, since no incantation is written in it; rather, it is a type of plant.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita that it is permitted to go out with an amulet,

whether an amulet containing writing or an amulet containing ingredients.

Thus, there is once again proof from an amulet containing writing.

And we answer:

Rather, with what are we dealing here?

The case in which they permitted going out with an amulet containing writing, and did not fear that he would remove it when entering a lavatory and subsequently come to violate the prohibition of carrying, is one involving an ill person

whose life is in danger,

so that there is no concern that he will remove it upon entering the lavatory, because of the saving of a life.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita that it is permitted for an ill person to go out with an amulet on Shabbat,

whether an ill person whose life is in danger or an ill person whose life is not in danger!?

Rather,

it necessarily follows:

Since it heals,

the amulet heals, and therefore,

even though he is holding it

the ill person

in his hand as well—

it is entirely permitted,

since carrying it on Shabbat is not prohibited, and it is considered like an ornament even when it is in his hand. Therefore, even if he carries the amulet in his hand, this is not carrying that is prohibited by Torah law.