## Shabbat Daf 61b

###### Shabbat 61b:1
[Shabbat 61b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:1)

בְּשֵׁיר וּבְטַבַּעַת וְיֵצֵא בּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִשּׁוּם מַרְאִית הָעַיִן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 61b:2
[Shabbat 61b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:2)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ קָמֵיעַ מוּמְחֶה — כֹּל שֶׁרִיפֵּא שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Shabbat 61b:3
[Shabbat 61b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:3)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — לִמְּחוֹיֵי גַּבְרָא, הָא — לִמְּחוֹיֵי קְמִיעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Shabbat 61b:4
[Shabbat 61b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 61b:5
[Shabbat 61b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 61b:6
[Shabbat 61b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:6)

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!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Shabbat 61b:7
[Shabbat 61b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:7)

אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן גְּנִיזָה. תָּא שְׁמַע: הָיָה כָּתוּב עַל יְדוֹת הַכֵּלִים וְעַל כַּרְעֵי הַמִּטָּה — יָגוֹד וְיִגְנְזֶנּוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 61b:8
[Shabbat 61b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 61b:9
[Shabbat 61b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:9)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ קְמֵיעִין יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם קְדוּשָּׁה, זִמְנִין דְּמִיצְטְרִיךְ לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, וְאָתֵי לְאֵיתוֹיִינְהוּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּקָמֵיעַ שֶׁל עִיקָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Shabbat 61b:10
[Shabbat 61b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:10)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Shabbat 61b:11
[Shabbat 61b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/61b:11)

אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּמַסֵּי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּנָקֵיט לֵיהּ בִּידֵיהּ — (נָמֵי) שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.