Shabbat 122

בשיר ובטבעת ויצא בו ברשות הרבים משום מראית העין

with a ring or a bracelet and go out therewith into the street, for appearances sake.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If secured with a ring or a bracelet it looks like being worn as an ornament, which it is not, and it would be forbidden to wear it as such. ');">¹</span>

והתניא איזהו קמיע מומחה כל שריפא ג' בני אדם כאחד

But it was taught: What is an approved amulet? One that has healed three men simultaneously?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Simultaneously' is absent from Rashi's version, but present in cur. edd. and Tosaf., which explains that it refers to three amulets (presumably of exactly the same pattern) worn by three men. Whereas by the previous definition it is sufficient if it has healed three times, even the same person. ');">²</span>

לא קשיא הא למחויי גברא הא למחויי קמיעא

— There is no difficulty: the one is to approve the man; the other is to approve the amulet.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that the practitioner may rank as an expert, he must have healed three different men with three different amulets; these three men would be suffering from three diverse maladies, and the amulets likewise would be different, i.e., contain different charms. Whatever amulet he subsequently issues is approved. The second Baraitha must now accordingly be translated thus: What is an amulet of an approved person? (An amulet issued by) one who has healed three persons. But the first Baraitha refers to the approving of the amulet itself; once it has healed three times, whether the same person or three different persons suffering from the same complaint, it is now approved for all men. Or, the same charm can now be written by any man, and it is approved. ');">³</span>

אמר רב פפא פשיטא לי תלת קמיע לתלת גברי תלתא תלתא זימני איתמחי גברא ואתמחי קמיע תלתא קמיע לתלתא גברי חד חד זימנא גברא איתמחי קמיעא לא איתמחי חד קמיע לתלתא גברי קמיעא איתמחי גברא לא איתמחי

R. Papa said: It is obvious to me that if three amulets<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each with a different charm and all written or prepared by the same man. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רב פפא תלתא קמיע לחד גברא מאי קמיעא ודאי לא איתמחי גברא איתמחי או לא איתמחי מי אמרינן הא אסי ליה או דילמא מזלא דהאי גברא הוא דקא מקבל כתבא תיקו.

[are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] three times,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even for the same person. ');">⁵</span>

איבעיא להו קמיעין יש . בהן משום קדושה או דילמא אין בהן משום קדושה למאי הילכתא אילימא לאצולינהו מפני הדליקה ת"ש הברכות והקמיעין אע"פ שיש בהן אותיות ומענינות הרבה שבתורה אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ונשרפים במקומן

both the practitioner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who prepared them. ');">⁶</span>

אלא לענין גניזה ת"ש * היה כתוב על ידות הכלים ועל כרעי המטה יגוד ויגנזנו

and the amulets are [henceforth] approved. If three amulets [are successful for] three people, each [being efficacious] once, the practitioner is [henceforth] approved, but not the amulets. If one amulet [is efficacious] for three men, the amulet is approved but not the practitioner. [But] R. Papa propounded: What if three amulets [are efficacious] for one person?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 286, n. 7. ');">⁷</span>

אלא ליכנס בהן בבית הכסא מאי יש בהן קדושה ואסיר או דילמא אין בהן קדושה ושרי ת"ש ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה הא מן המומחה נפיק

The amulets are certainly not rendered approved: but does the practitioner become approved or not? Do we say, Surely. he has healed him! Or perhaps, it is this man's fate<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'planetary destiny', v. infra 156a, h. ');">⁸</span>

ואי אמרת קמיעין יש בהן משום קדושה זמנין דמיצטריך לבית הכסא ואתי לאיתויינהו ד' אמות ברה"ר הכא במאי עסקינן בקמיע של עיקרין

to be susceptible to writings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. written amulets. But the practitioner might not be successful for another. ');">⁹</span>

והתניא אחד קמיע של כתב ואחד קמיע של עיקרין אלא הכא במאי עסקינן בחולה שיש בו סכנה והתניא אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה ואחד חולה שאין בו סכנה

The question stands over.

אלא כיון דמסי אף על גב דנקיט ליה בידיה נמי שפיר דמי

The scholars propounded: Have amulets sanctity or not? In respect of what law? Shall we say, in respect of saving them from a fire?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if a fire breaks out in a house, it shall be permitted to carry these into a courtyard which is not formally joined to the house by means of an 'erub (v. Glos.). Nothing may be taken out of a house into this courtyard, except sacred writings, to save them from fire; infra 115a. ');">¹⁰</span> Then come and hear: Benedictions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In writing. ');">¹¹</span> and amulets, though they contain the [divine] letters and many passages from the Torah, may not be saved from a fire, but are burnt where they are. Again, if in respect to hiding,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When sacred writings are worn out and not fit for use, they may not be thrown away or burnt, but must be 'hidden', i.e., buried; Meg. 26b. ');">¹²</span> — Come and hear: If it [the Divine Name] was written on the handles of utensils or on the legs of a bed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For magical purposes; v. A. Marmorstein in MGWJ. [1928], pp. 391 seq. ');">¹³</span> it must be cut out and hidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus whatever contains the Divine Name must be treated as sacred in this respect. ');">¹⁴</span> Rather [the problem is] what about entering a privy with them? Have they sanctity, and it is forbidden; or perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted? — Come and hear: NOR WITH AN AMULET, IF IT IS NOT FROM AN EXPERT. This [implies that] if it is from an expert, one may go out [with it]; now if you say that amulets possess sanctity, it may happen that one needs a privy, and so come to carry it four cubits in the street?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may have to remove it in order to deposit it somewhere and carry it thither. ');">¹⁵</span> The reference here is to an amulet of roots.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This certainly does not possess sanctity, since the Divine Name is not there. ');">¹⁶</span> But it was taught. Both a written amulet and an amulet of roots? — The reference here is to an invalid whose life is endangered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the amulet is removed. He may take it into a privy even if it possesses sanctity. ');">¹⁷</span> But it was taught: 'Both an invalid whose life is endangered and one whose life is not endangered'? — Rather [this is the reply]: since it heals even when he holds it in his hand, it is well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitted as a kind of cure. For even if one does carry it in the street in his hands, it is not a culpable act. ');">¹⁸</span>