שבת סא

שבת סא

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.