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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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.
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
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
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 began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, 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 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
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, 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
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
