Shabbat 61b — the Talmud in English

An armlet or

a ring, and he went out with it into the public domain, because of the appearance of the eye

so that they would not say that he was going out with it as an ornament, and this is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

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

Any one that healed three people at once.

And it follows that if it healed one person three times, it is still not considered proven, and this is difficult from the earlier beraita, for it was taught: Any one that healed, and repeated, and healed a third time, even one person, is considered a proven amulet.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty.

This

that it was taught that it healed three people is with regard

to establishing the person —

that the person becomes proven with regard to all types of amulets in the world, when he healed three people suffering from three illnesses through three different types of amulets.

This

that it was taught that the same person healed, repeated, and healed a third time is with regard

to establishing the amulet —

that the amulet becomes proven when it healed three people, or one person three times from one illness. And even if the same incantation was written by three healers, and each one healed one sick person, this incantation becomes a proven amulet through any person who writes it.

Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me

that

three

different types of

amulet

for

three people,

and each incantation healed

three times each

each of them three times, even one person, in such a case it is considered that

the person was established

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

the amulet was established —

each of these three amulets became proven through any person who writes them, since they healed three times.

And it is also obvious to Rav Pappa: He wrote

three amulets for

healing

three people

and his amulets were effective

once each

for each amulet; in such a case only

the person was established

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

the amulet was not established,

since each amulet was effective only once.

If he wrote

one amulet

and it was effective

for three people,

all of whom were ill with the same illness, in such a case only

the amulet was established

through any person for this illness, but

the person was not established

with regard to another amulet containing another incantation and for another illness.

Rav Pappa posed a question: Three amulets

for three types of illness

for one person —

what?

The amulet —

certainly was not established,

since each amulet was effective only once.

Rather, Rav Pappa was uncertain concerning

the person,

who wrote these three amulets:

was he established or was he not established?

Do we say: This one healed him

through three different amulets that the same person wrote?

Or perhaps it was the fortune of this person

the sick person

who receives the writing,

so that an amulet is effective for him?

And we conclude:

It stands unresolved.

They raised a dilemma before them: Amulets —

is there sanctity in them, or perhaps there is no sanctity in them.

And we inquire:

For what halakhic matter

did we raise this doubt?

If you say, to rescue them from a fire

on Shabbat like the other sacred writings, for when rescuing them they were not concerned about excessive exertion forbidden on Shabbat, nor were they concerned about the absence of an eruv when taking them out into an alley that is not open at both ends, in which there is no eruv.

Come and hear

as 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 the amulets, even though they contain letters,

and many matters from the Torah,

for they 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 less than the sanctity of the sacred writings.

And they are burned in their place.

And necessarily, with regard to the permission to rescue them on Shabbat, we did not raise a doubt whether there is sanctity in amulets.

Rather,

the doubt is

with regard

to the obligation of

geniza,

whether they possess it.

Come and hear

it was taught in a beraita:

If the Name

of the Lord

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

he shall cut it off,

he shall cut off the place on which the Name of the Lord is written

and place it in geniza.

According to this, amulets in which the Name of the Lord is mentioned also require geniza, so why did they raise a doubt whether there is sanctity in them?

Rather,

the doubt is whether it is permitted

to enter the lavatory with them.

What?

Does

there exist sanctity in them, and it is forbidden

to enter the lavatory with them?

Or perhaps there is no sanctity in them, and it is permitted.

Come and hear

that we learned in our Mishna:

And he shall not

go out on Shabbat

with an amulet when it is not from a proven expert.

And we deduce: An amulet

from a proven expert —

he may go out.

And if you say that there is sanctity in amulets,

and it is forbidden to enter the lavatory with them, why did they permit going out with them on Shabbat? For

there are times when he needs

the bearer of the amulet

to go to the lavatory

and remove the amulet,

and

afterward

he may come to carry it four cubits in the public domain. And from the fact that they were not concerned about this, it is proven that it is permitted to enter the lavatory with an amulet.

And we reject this: There is no proof from the Mishna. For

The Gemara rejects this: There is no proof from the Mishna, because

here

it is speaking

of an amulet containing ingredients,

which has no sanctity, because no incantation is written in it; rather, it is a type of plant.

And we raise an objection:

And it was taught

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

both an amulet containing writing and an amulet containing ingredients.

And once again there is proof from an amulet containing writing.

And we answer:

Rather, with what are we dealing here?

They permitted going out with an amulet containing writing and were not concerned that he might remove it when entering the lavatory and afterward come to a prohibition of carrying, in the case of a sick person

who is in danger,

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

And we raise an objection:

And it was taught

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

both a sick person who is in danger and a sick person who is not in danger!?

Rather,

it is necessarily so:

since it heals,

that the amulet heals, and therefore,

even though he holds it

the sick person

in his hand as well —

it is entirely permissible,

for there is no prohibition of carrying it out on Shabbat, and it is considered like an ornament, even while it is in his hand. Therefore, even if he moves the amulet in his hand, this is not carrying out that is forbidden by Torah law.