If one has an injured foot, one can go out on Shabbat with one shoe on. On which foot – the injured one or the other one? Are shoes meant to prevent pain or for pleasure? Which shoe should one put on first – right or left? Why can’t one walk out in tefillin – is the mishna within the opinion that people can or cannot wear tefillin on Shabbat? The gemara brings different possibilities regarding how to determine whether or not an amulet has proven successful? Does an amulet have sanctity – does one need to remove it before going to the bathroom?
This week’s learning is sponsored by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee. “A wonderful man.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee. “A wonderful man.”
Shabbat 61
הָא יֵשׁ בְּרַגְלוֹ מַכָּה — נָפֵיק. בְּהֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ נָפֵיק? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר, סַנְדָּל לְשׁוּם צַעַר עֲבִיד.
By inference: If there is a wound on his foot, he may go out with one sandal. In that case, with a sandal on which of his feet does he go out? Rav Huna said: With a sandal on the foot that has a wound on it. Apparently, he holds: A sandal is made for the purpose of avoiding pain. Typically, a person wears sandals only in order to avoid the pain of walking on stones and the like. When he is seen with only one sandal, it is clear that he is oblivious to that pain and the only reason that he is wearing the sandal is due to the wound on his foot. Consequently, no one will suspect that he went out wearing two sandals and that if he is wearing one, he must be carrying the other one.
וְחִיָּיא בַּר רַב אָמַר: בְּאוֹתָהּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מַכָּה. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר, לְשׁוּם תַּעֲנוּג עֲבִיד, וְזוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה — מַכָּתָהּ מוֹכַחַת עָלֶיהָ.
And Ḥiyya bar Rav said: He goes out with a sandal on the foot that does not have a wound on it. Apparently, he holds that the sandal is made for the purpose of providing comfort, and he wears it on his healthy foot. And it does not arouse suspicion because, with regard to that foot on which there is a wound, its wound indicates that he is unable to wear a sandal on that foot, and it is clear that he left the other sandal at home.
וְאַף רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן סָבַר לַהּ לְהָא דְּרַב הוּנָא. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא: הַב לִי מְסָנַאי. יְהַב לֵיהּ דְּיָמִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ עֲשִׂיתוֹ מַכָּה.
The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Yoḥanan also holds that the opinion of Rav Huna, which maintains that one only wears sandals to avoid pain, is correct. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, his attendant: Give me my sandal. He gave him the right sandal. He said to him: You have rendered this foot as one with a wound. In Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, one must always put on his left shoe first. One who puts on the right shoe first is no longer permitted to put on the left shoe. By handing him his right sandal, he is forcing Rabbi Yoḥanan to go out with one sandal, leading onlookers to conclude that he has a wound on that foot. That incident corresponds to Rav Huna’s opinion that one wears the sandal on the wounded foot.
וְדִילְמָא כְּחִיָּיא בַּר רַב סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: עָשִׂיתָ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל מַכָּה.
The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Ḥiyya bar Rav, which maintains that one wears the sandal on the healthy foot, and he is saying as follows: By handing me my right shoe, you have rendered my left foot, on which I have no shoe, as one with a wound. No proof can be cited from that incident, as Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion cannot be ascertained from the exchange with his attendant.
וְאַזְדָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דַּאֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּתְפִילִּין כָּךְ מִנְעָלִין. מַה תְּפִילִּין בִּשְׂמֹאל, אַף מִנְעָלִין בִּשְׂמֹאל.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his regular line of reasoning. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as one dons phylacteries, so too, one puts on shoes. Just as phylacteries are placed on the left arm, so too, when putting on shoes one begins with the left foot.
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּשֶׁהוּא נוֹעֵל — נוֹעֵל שֶׁל יָמִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹעֵל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion from a baraita: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe first and afterward puts on the left shoe.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַשְׁתָּא דְּתַנְיָא הָכִי, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי, דַּעֲבַד הָכִי — עֲבַד, וְדַעֲבַד הָכִי — עֲבַד.
Rav Yosef said: Now that it was taught in a baraita in this manner, and Rabbi Yoḥanan stated the halakha in that manner, one who acted this way acted properly, and one who acted that way acted properly, as each custom has a basis.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּילְמָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָא מַתְנִיתִין לָא הֲוָה שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְאִי הֲוָה שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ הֲוָה הָדַר בֵּיהּ. וְאִי נָמֵי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ, וְקָסָבַר אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּאוֹתָהּ מִשְׁנָה.
Abaye said to him: Why is the Gemara certain that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagrees with the baraita? Perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan had not heard this baraita, and had he heard it, he would have retracted his opinion. And even if he heard it, perhaps he heard it and held that the halakha is not in accordance with that mishna. In any case, it is necessary to rule in accordance with one of the opinions.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: יְרֵא שָׁמַיִם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וּמַנּוּ? — מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבְנָא. הֵיכִי עָבֵיד? — סָיֵים דְּיַמִּינֵיהּ וְלָא קָטַר, וְסָיֵים דִּשְׂמָאלֵיהּ וְקָטַר, וַהֲדַר קָטַר דְּיַמִּינֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲזֵינָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא דְּלָא קָפֵיד.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And one who fears Heaven fulfills both opinions. And who is this God-fearing person? Mar, son of Rabbana. How does he conduct himself? He puts on his right shoe and does not tie the laces. And then he puts on his left shoe and ties it, and then afterward ties the laces of his right shoe. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana was not particular with regard to the order in which he put on his shoes.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁהוּא נוֹעֵל — נוֹעֵל שֶׁל יָמִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹעֵל שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. כְּשֶׁהוּא חוֹלֵץ — חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל וְאַחַר כָּךְ חוֹלֵץ שֶׁל יָמִין.
After citing this excerpt from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz with regard to putting on shoes, the Gemara cites the entire matter. The Sages taught: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe first and afterward puts on the left shoe because the right always takes precedence. When he removes them, he removes the left and afterward he removes the right, so that the right shoe will remain on the foot longer.
כְּשֶׁהוּא רוֹחֵץ — רוֹחֵץ שֶׁל יָמִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ רוֹחֵץ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. כְּשֶׁהוּא סָךְ — סָךְ שֶׁל יָמִין וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל שְׂמֹאל. וְהָרוֹצֶה לָסוּךְ כׇּל גּוּפוֹ — סָךְ רֹאשׁוֹ תְּחִילָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מֶלֶךְ עַל כׇּל אֵיבָרָיו.
When one washes his feet, he washes the right first and afterward he washes the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on his feet spreads oil on the right first and afterward spreads oil on the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on his entire body, spreads oil on his head first because it is the king of all his other limbs.
וְלֹא בִּתְפִילִּין. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא — לֹא יֵצֵא, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְאֵיתוּיֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with phylacteries. Rav Safra said: Do not say that this halakha is only in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, i.e., it is prohibited to don phylacteries on Shabbat, and that is the reason that one may not go out into the public domain with them. Rather, even according to the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, he may not go out with them due to the concern lest he come to carry them in his hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law.
וְאִיכָּא דְמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא: וְאִם יָצָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לָא תֵּימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְמַאן דְּאָמַר שַׁבָּת זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שַׁבָּת לָאו זְמַן תְּפִילִּין הוּא — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. מַאי טַעְמָא? — דֶּרֶךְ מַלְבּוּשׁ עֲבִידָא.
And some teach the statement of Rav Safra as referring to the latter clause of the mishna: And if he went out into the public domain with phylacteries he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Safra said: Do not say that this halakha is only according to the opinion of the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, and therefore he does not violate a Torah prohibition by going out into the public domain with phylacteries and is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, even according to the opinion of one who said that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. What is the reason that he is exempt? Donning phylacteries is performed in the manner of wearing a garment or an ornament. Although one may not use phylacteries on Shabbat, there is no Torah prohibition against moving them.
וְלֹא בְּקָמֵיעַ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא תֵּימָא עַד דְּמוּמְחֶה גַּבְרָא וּמוּמְחֶה קָמֵיעַ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּמוּמְחֶה גַּבְרָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא מוּמְחֶה קָמֵיעַ.
We learned in the mishna: Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the meaning of the mishna is that one may only go out with an amulet if the person who wrote it is an expert and the amulet has proven effective. Rather, if the person who wrote it is an expert, even though the amulet has not proven effective, he may go out with it.
דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: ״וְלֹא בְּקָמֵיעַ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי: ״בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּמְחֶה״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert, and it does not teach: When the amulet is not effective. Apparently, it is sufficient if the writer of the amulet is an expert, even if the effectiveness of the amulet has not been proven. The Gemara comments: Indeed, learn from it.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ קָמֵיעַ מוּמְחֶה — כֹּל שֶׁרִיפֵּא, וְשָׁנָה, וְשִׁלֵּשׁ. אֶחָד קָמֵיעַ שֶׁל כְּתָב וְאֶחָד קָמֵיעַ שֶׁל עִיקָּרִין, אֶחָד חוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה וְאֶחָד חוֹלֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה.
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: What is an effective amulet? It is any amulet that healed one person once, and healed him again, and healed him a third time. That is the criterion for an effective amulet, and it applies to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots; both if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is dangerously ill, and if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is not dangerously ill. It is permitted to go out with these types of amulets on Shabbat.
לֹא שֶׁנִּכְפָּה, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִכָּפֶה.
And an amulet was not only permitted in a case where one has already fallen due to epilepsy and wears the amulet in order to prevent an additional fall. Rather, even if one has never fallen, and he wears the amulet so that he will not contract the illness and fall, he is permitted to go out with it on Shabbat is permitted.
וְקוֹשֵׁר וּמַתִּיר אֲפִילּוּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְשְׁרֶנּוּ
And he may tie and untie it even in the public domain, as long as he does not tie it
בְּשֵׁיר וּבְטַבַּעַת וְיֵצֵא בּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.
to a bracelet or a ring and go out with it into the public domain. The reason for the prohibition is due to the appearance of transgression, as, in that case, it appears that he is wearing the amulet strictly for ornamental purposes, which is prohibited.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ קָמֵיעַ מוּמְחֶה — כֹּל שֶׁרִיפֵּא שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד!
With regard to the definition of an effective amulet as one which healed one person three times, the Gemara raises an objection. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Which is an effective amulet; any amulet that healed three people as one?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — לִמְּחוֹיֵי גַּבְרָא, הָא — לִמְּחוֹיֵי קְמִיעָא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where it was taught in the baraita that the amulet must have healed three different people, is referring to proving the expertise of the man who wrote it. Once his amulets have proven themselves by healing three different people stricken with different illnesses, clearly the one who wrote them is an expert. That, where it was taught in the Tosefta that even if the amulet healed one person three times, is referring to proving that the amulet is effective in fulfilling its designated purpose.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי תְּלָתָא קְמֵיעֵי לִתְלָתָא גַּבְרֵי תְּלָתָא תְּלָתָא זִימְנֵי — אִיתְמַחִי גַּבְרָא וְאִתְמַחִי קָמֵיעַ. תְּלָתָא קְמֵיעֵי לִתְלָתָא גַּבְרֵי חַד חַד זִימְנָא — גַּבְרָא אִיתְמַחִי, קְמִיעָא לָא אִיתְמַחִי. חַד קָמֵיעַ לִתְלָתָא גַּבְרֵי — קְמִיעָא אִיתְמַחִי, גַּבְרָא לָא אִיתְמַחִי.
Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me in a case where three amulets were written for three people and effectively healed each three times that both the man who wrote them is proven an expert and the amulet is proven effective. Likewise, it is obvious to me that in the case of one who writes three amulets for three people and healed each one time, the man is proven to be an expert; however, the amulet is not proven effective. Similarly, if one wrote one amulet for three people and it healed them, the amulet is proven effective, while the man who wrote it is not thereby proven an expert.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: תְּלָתָא קְמֵיעֵי לְחַד גַּבְרָא מַאי? קְמִיעָא וַדַּאי לָא אִיתְמַחִי. גַּבְרָא אִיתְמַחִי, אוֹ לָא אִיתְמַחִי? מִי אָמְרִינַן הָא אַסִּי לֵיהּ, אוֹ דִילְמָא מַזָּלָא דְּהַאי גַּבְרָא הוּא דְּקָא מְקַבֵּל כְּתָבָא. תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Three amulets for one person, what is the status of the amulet and the one who wrote it in that case? The amulet is certainly not proven effective; however, with regard to the man who wrote it, is he proven an expert or is he not proven an expert? This is the dilemma: Do we say that the person is an expert since the amulet that he wrote healed the person who was ill? Or, perhaps we say that it was the fortune of that sick man who received the influence of the writing of the amulet, but a different person would not be healed? The Gemara concludes: Let this dilemma stand unresolved.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: קְמֵיעִין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה? לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אִילֵּימָא לְאַצּוֹלִינְהוּ מִפְּנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַבְּרָכוֹת וְהַקְּמֵיעִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אוֹתִיּוֹת וּמֵעִנְיָנוֹת הַרְבֵּה שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה — אֵין מַצִּילִין אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי הַדְּלֵיקָה, וְנִשְׂרָפִים בִּמְקוֹמָן!
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do amulets have an element of sanctity, or perhaps they have no element of sanctity? The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this dilemma relevant? If you say it is relevant with regard to rescuing them from fire on Shabbat, there is a clear resolution to the dilemma. Come and hear what was taught: The blessings and the amulets, even though there are letters of holy names and many matters that are in the Torah written in them, one may not rescue them from the fire, and they burn in their place.
אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן גְּנִיזָה. תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה כָּתוּב עַל יְדוֹת הַכֵּלִים וְעַל כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה — יָגוֹד וְיִגְנְזֶנּוּ!
Rather, the dilemma is relevant with regard to the matter of interment of sacred documents. Must an amulet no longer in use be buried, or may it be discarded? However, with regard to the matter of interment as well, come and hear a resolution from what was taught: If one of the names of God was written even on the handles of the vessels and even on legs of the bed, he must cut off the name and bury it, as one must be exacting with regard to the name of God, wherever it is written.
אֶלָּא לִיכָּנֵס בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא. מַאי? יֵשׁ בָּהֶן קְדוּשָּׁה — וַאֲסִיר, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵין בָּהֶן קְדוּשָּׁה — וּשְׁרֵי? תָּא שְׁמַע וְלֹא בְּקָמֵיעַ בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה: הָא מִן הַמּוּמְחֶה — נָפֵיק.
Rather, the dilemma was raised with regard to whether or not it is permitted to enter the bathroom with them. What is the halakha? Do they have sanctity, and it is therefore prohibited? Or, perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted? Come and hear a resolution from that which we learned in our mishna: Nor with an amulet, when it is not from an expert. By inference: If it is from an expert, he may go out with it.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ קְמֵיעִין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה, זִמְנִין דְּמִיצְטְרִיךְ לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, וְאָתֵי לְאֵיתוֹיִינְהוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּקָמֵיעַ שֶׁל עִיקָּרִין.
And, if you say that amulets have an element of sanctity, at times he will need to go to the bathroom, will be required to remove the amulets, forget that he removed them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain. Since the mishna did not address these complications, apparently amulets do not have an element of sanctity in that regard and one may enter the bathroom with them. The Gemara rejects this: With what we are dealing here? With an amulet made of herbal roots that certainly has no sanctity.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶחָד קָמֵיעַ שֶׁל כְּתָב וְאֶחָד קָמֵיעַ שֶׁל עִיקָּרִין! אֶלָּא הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּחוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה. וְהָתַנְיָא: אֶחָד חוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה וְאֶחָד חוֹלֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה.
The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the case with regard to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots, indicating that their halakhot are equal? Rather, with what we are dealing here? With a person who is dangerously ill. Because of the life-threatening situation, he is permitted to enter the bathroom with his amulet, despite the resulting degradation of the Holy Name. Wasn’t it taught in the same baraita that the halakha applies to both a sick person who is dangerously ill and a sick person who is not dangerously ill, indicating that they share the same status in this regard?
אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּמַסֵּי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ — (נָמֵי) שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
Rather, since the amulet heals, even though he holds it in his hand, he may well go out with it too. In terms of healing, there is no difference whether the amulet is hanging around his neck or whether it is in his hand; just as they permitted him to wear it around his neck on Shabbat, so too they permitted him to carry it in his hand.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
Shabbat 61
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, Χ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¦Φ·Χ’Φ·Χ¨ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
By inference: If there is a wound on his foot, he may go out with one sandal. In that case, with a sandal on which of his feet does he go out? Rav Huna said: With a sandal on the foot that has a wound on it. Apparently, he holds: A sandal is made for the purpose of avoiding pain. Typically, a person wears sandals only in order to avoid the pain of walking on stones and the like. When he is seen with only one sandal, it is clear that he is oblivious to that pain and the only reason that he is wearing the sandal is due to the wound on his foot. Consequently, no one will suspect that he went out wearing two sandals and that if he is wearing one, he must be carrying the other one.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ ΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
And αΈ€iyya bar Rav said: He goes out with a sandal on the foot that does not have a wound on it. Apparently, he holds that the sandal is made for the purpose of providing comfort, and he wears it on his healthy foot. And it does not arouse suspicion because, with regard to that foot on which there is a wound, its wound indicates that he is unable to wear a sandal on that foot, and it is clear that he left the other sandal at home.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Φ·ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara comments: And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan also holds that the opinion of Rav Huna, which maintains that one only wears sandals to avoid pain, is correct. As Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to Rav Shemen bar Abba, his attendant: Give me my sandal. He gave him the right sandal. He said to him: You have rendered this foot as one with a wound. In Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs opinion, one must always put on his left shoe first. One who puts on the right shoe first is no longer permitted to put on the left shoe. By handing him his right sandal, he is forcing Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan to go out with one sandal, leading onlookers to conclude that he has a wound on that foot. That incident corresponds to Rav Hunaβs opinion that one wears the sandal on the wounded foot.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara rejects this: And perhaps, he holds in accordance with the opinion of αΈ€iyya bar Rav, which maintains that one wears the sandal on the healthy foot, and he is saying as follows: By handing me my right shoe, you have rendered my left foot, on which I have no shoe, as one with a wound. No proof can be cited from that incident, as Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs opinion cannot be ascertained from the exchange with his attendant.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ.
And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan follows his regular line of reasoning. As Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said: Just as one dons phylacteries, so too, one puts on shoes. Just as phylacteries are placed on the left arm, so too, when putting on shoes one begins with the left foot.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ β Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ!
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs opinion from a baraita: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe first and afterward puts on the left shoe.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£: ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ β Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ β Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ.
Rav Yosef said: Now that it was taught in a baraita in this manner, and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan stated the halakha in that manner, one who acted this way acted properly, and one who acted that way acted properly, as each custom has a basis.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ.
Abaye said to him: Why is the Gemara certain that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan disagrees with the baraita? Perhaps Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan had not heard this baraita, and had he heard it, he would have retracted his opinion. And even if he heard it, perhaps he heard it and held that the halakha is not in accordance with that mishna. In any case, it is necessary to rule in accordance with one of the opinions.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§: ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΌ? β ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ? β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ.
Rav NaαΈ₯man bar YitzαΈ₯ak said: And one who fears Heaven fulfills both opinions. And who is this God-fearing person? Mar, son of Rabbana. How does he conduct himself? He puts on his right shoe and does not tie the laces. And then he puts on his left shoe and ties it, and then afterward ties the laces of his right shoe. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana was not particular with regard to the order in which he put on his shoes.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ β Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ ΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
After citing this excerpt from Hilkhot Derekh Eretz with regard to putting on shoes, the Gemara cites the entire matter. The Sages taught: When one puts on his shoes, he puts on the right shoe first and afterward puts on the left shoe because the right always takes precedence. When he removes them, he removes the left and afterward he removes the right, so that the right shoe will remain on the foot longer.
ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ β Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ₯ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ. ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ° β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ° Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉ β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ° Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ.
When one washes his feet, he washes the right first and afterward he washes the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on his feet spreads oil on the right first and afterward spreads oil on the left. And one who wishes to spread oil on his entire body, spreads oil on his head first because it is the king of all his other limbs.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
We learned in the mishna: And he may neither go out with phylacteries. Rav Safra said: Do not say that this halakha is only in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, i.e., it is prohibited to don phylacteries on Shabbat, and that is the reason that one may not go out into the public domain with them. Rather, even according to the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, he may not go out with them due to the concern lest he come to carry them in his hand in the public domain, which is prohibited by Torah law.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? β ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ©Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
And some teach the statement of Rav Safra as referring to the latter clause of the mishna: And if he went out into the public domain with phylacteries he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Safra said: Do not say that this halakha is only according to the opinion of the one who said that Shabbat is an appropriate time to don phylacteries, and therefore he does not violate a Torah prohibition by going out into the public domain with phylacteries and is not liable to bring a sin-offering. Rather, even according to the opinion of one who said that Shabbat is not an appropriate time to don phylacteries, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering. What is the reason that he is exempt? Donning phylacteries is performed in the manner of wearing a garment or an ornament. Although one may not use phylacteries on Shabbat, there is no Torah prohibition against moving them.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ·, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ·.
We learned in the mishna: Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the meaning of the mishna is that one may only go out with an amulet if the person who wrote it is an expert and the amulet has proven effective. Rather, if the person who wrote it is an expert, even though the amulet has not proven effective, he may go out with it.
ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ΄. Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Nor with an amulet when it is not from an expert, and it does not teach: When the amulet is not effective. Apparently, it is sufficient if the writer of the amulet is an expert, even if the effectiveness of the amulet has not been proven. The Gemara comments: Indeed, learn from it.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ.
The Sages taught in the Tosefta: What is an effective amulet? It is any amulet that healed one person once, and healed him again, and healed him a third time. That is the criterion for an effective amulet, and it applies to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots; both if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is dangerously ill, and if it has proven effective in healing a sick person who is not dangerously ill. It is permitted to go out with these types of amulets on Shabbat.
ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΆΧ.
And an amulet was not only permitted in a case where one has already fallen due to epilepsy and wears the amulet in order to prevent an additional fall. Rather, even if one has never fallen, and he wears the amulet so that he will not contract the illness and fall, he is permitted to go out with it on Shabbat is permitted.
ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ
And he may tie and untie it even in the public domain, as long as he does not tie it
ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ.
to a bracelet or a ring and go out with it into the public domain. The reason for the prohibition is due to the appearance of transgression, as, in that case, it appears that he is wearing the amulet strictly for ornamental purposes, which is prohibited.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ!
With regard to the definition of an effective amulet as one which healed one person three times, the Gemara raises an objection. Wasnβt it taught in a baraita: Which is an effective amulet; any amulet that healed three people as one?
ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, where it was taught in the baraita that the amulet must have healed three different people, is referring to proving the expertise of the man who wrote it. Once his amulets have proven themselves by healing three different people stricken with different illnesses, clearly the one who wrote them is an expert. That, where it was taught in the Tosefta that even if the amulet healed one person three times, is referring to proving that the amulet is effective in fulfilling its designated purpose.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ·. ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ·Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ β Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ.
Rav Pappa said: It is obvious to me in a case where three amulets were written for three people and effectively healed each three times that both the man who wrote them is proven an expert and the amulet is proven effective. Likewise, it is obvious to me that in the case of one who writes three amulets for three people and healed each one time, the man is proven to be an expert; however, the amulet is not proven effective. Similarly, if one wrote one amulet for three people and it healed them, the amulet is proven effective, while the man who wrote it is not thereby proven an expert.
ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
Rav Pappa raised a dilemma: Three amulets for one person, what is the status of the amulet and the one who wrote it in that case? The amulet is certainly not proven effective; however, with regard to the man who wrote it, is he proven an expert or is he not proven an expert? This is the dilemma: Do we say that the person is an expert since the amulet that he wrote healed the person who was ill? Or, perhaps we say that it was the fortune of that sick man who received the influence of the writing of the amulet, but a different person would not be healed? The Gemara concludes: Let this dilemma stand unresolved.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ!
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do amulets have an element of sanctity, or perhaps they have no element of sanctity? The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this dilemma relevant? If you say it is relevant with regard to rescuing them from fire on Shabbat, there is a clear resolution to the dilemma. Come and hear what was taught: The blessings and the amulets, even though there are letters of holy names and many matters that are in the Torah written in them, one may not rescue them from the fire, and they burn in their place.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ!
Rather, the dilemma is relevant with regard to the matter of interment of sacred documents. Must an amulet no longer in use be buried, or may it be discarded? However, with regard to the matter of interment as well, come and hear a resolution from what was taught: If one of the names of God was written even on the handles of the vessels and even on legs of the bed, he must cut off the name and bury it, as one must be exacting with regard to the name of God, wherever it is written.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ‘ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ? ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ β Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§.
Rather, the dilemma was raised with regard to whether or not it is permitted to enter the bathroom with them. What is the halakha? Do they have sanctity, and it is therefore prohibited? Or, perhaps they have no sanctity, and it is permitted? Come and hear a resolution from that which we learned in our mishna: Nor with an amulet, when it is not from an expert. By inference: If it is from an expert, he may go out with it.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
And, if you say that amulets have an element of sanctity, at times he will need to go to the bathroom, will be required to remove the amulets, forget that he removed them, and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain. Since the mishna did not address these complications, apparently amulets do not have an element of sanctity in that regard and one may enter the bathroom with them. The Gemara rejects this: With what we are dealing here? With an amulet made of herbal roots that certainly has no sanctity.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: Wasnβt it taught in a baraita: This is the case with regard to both a written amulet and an amulet of herbal roots, indicating that their halakhot are equal? Rather, with what we are dealing here? With a person who is dangerously ill. Because of the life-threatening situation, he is permitted to enter the bathroom with his amulet, despite the resulting degradation of the Holy Name. Wasnβt it taught in the same baraita that the halakha applies to both a sick person who is dangerously ill and a sick person who is not dangerously ill, indicating that they share the same status in this regard?
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β (Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ) Χ©ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
Rather, since the amulet heals, even though he holds it in his hand, he may well go out with it too. In terms of healing, there is no difference whether the amulet is hanging around his neck or whether it is in his hand; just as they permitted him to wear it around his neck on Shabbat, so too they permitted him to carry it in his hand.
Follow
