Efficacy, sanctity, and carrying of amulets

In the typical associative reasoning of the Bavli, once the sugya is on the topic of kameot, the Stam brings in another related topic. Do amulets have sanctity? Are they to be treated as holy or mundane? What are the implications of this? The conversation continues on Shabbat 61b-62a:

איבעיא להו: קמיעין יש בהן משום קדושה או דילמא: אין בהן משום קדושה? למאי הילכתא! אילימא לאצולינהו מפני הדליקה - תא שמע: הברכות והקמיעין, אף על פי שיש בהן אותיות ומענינות הרבה שבתורה - אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה, ונשרפים במקומן. אלא לענין גניזה. - תא שמע: היה כתוב על ידות הכלים ועל כרעי המטה - יגוד ויגנזנו. - אלא ליכנס בהן בבית הכסא, מאי? יש בהן קדושה - ואסיר, או דילמא: אין בהן קדושה ושרי? - תא שמע: ולא בקמיע בזמן שאינו מן המומחה. הא מן המומחה - נפיק. ואי - אמרת קמיעין יש בהן משום קדושה - זמנין דמיצטריך לבית הכסא, ואתי לאיתויינהו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים! - הכא במאי עסקינן - בקמיע של עיקרין. - והתניא: אחד קמיע של כתב ואחד קמיע של עיקרין! - אלא, הכא במאי עסקינן - בחולה שיש בו סכנה. - והתניא: אחד חולה שיש בו סכנה ואחד חולה שאין בו סכנה! - אלא, כיון דמסי, אף על גב דנקיט ליה בידיה - נמי שפיר דמי.

והתניא, רבי אושעיא אומר: ובלבד שלא יאחזנו בידו ויעבירנו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים!

A quandary was presented to the sages: Do amulets have sanctity or not? What law does this relate to? If you say that the sanctity of amulets is relevant to the question of if they are sacred enough to require being saved from a fire on Shabbat, when in general, mundane things may not be spared from a burning building, then you should learn the following law as a resolution: written blessings and amulets, even though they contain the letters of holy names and many concepts from the Torah (and one might think that they are sacred), nevertheless are not saved from the fire and are left to burn where they are.

Rather, the sanctity of amulets is relevant to the question of if they are sacred enough to require burial when they are no longer used, which is how sacred documents and texts are disposed of. You should learn the following as a resolution: If a Name of God was written on the handles of jugs or on the legs of a bed, things that are considered generally mundane, she is required to break off the portion on which the Name is written and bury it.

Rather, the sanctity of amulets is relevant to the question of if they are sacred enough to be prohibited from being brought into the bathroom (literal translation: “the house of the chair”), where holy things are generally not brought. What is the ruling on this? Do amulets have sanctity and thus they are forbidden from being brought into the bathroom or do they lack sanctity and thus are permitted to be brought into the bathroom? You should learn the mishnah as a resolution: “nor wearing an amulet which was not written by an expert” and infer that if the amulet was written by an expert it may be worn into the public domain on Shabbat. If you rule that amulets are sacred, there will be times when the wearer will need to use the bathroom, he will remove the amulet, forget to put it back on again and instead carry it in some way, and then, in his negligence, come to carry the amulet four cubits into the public domain! Since the mishnah never discussed this complication, one may infer that amulets do not have sanctity and can thus be worn and brought into the bathroom.

The Stam rejects this: what is the case being discussed here? It is discussing an amulet that is made from roots of herbs (which has no sacred writing on it). But wasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: this amulet may be a written amulet or an amulet composed of roots of herbs, meaning that the same laws apply to both types of amulets?

Rather, what is the case being discussed here? It is discussing a sick person who was dangerously ill (who may thus break the prohibition on carrying sacred things into the bathroom because the amulet might be necessary to save her life). But wasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: the amulet may be one effective at healing a sick person who was dangerously ill or even one proven effective at healing a sick person who was not dangerously ill, meaning that the same laws apply to amulet-wearers who have life-threatening and non-life-threatening illnesses?

Rather, since the amulet is effective at healing even if it is only held in one’s hand and not around the neck, one may carry it out into the public domain as well. But wasn’t it taught in a braita: Rabi Oshaya said: as long as he does not hold it in his hand and carry it four cubits in the public domain, meaning that there is a difference between wearing the amulet and carrying it!

If kameot are sacred, they would need to be saved from burning buildings, buried in graves in order to be disposed of, and one would be prohibited from wearing or carrying them into the bathroom. We then learn that there are people who are so gravely ill that their amulets may be the only thing sustaining them, therefore they might die in the bathroom should they remove their kameot even for just a few minutes. The operative halakhic principle is פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַמַּצּוֹת, that pikuah nefesh, saving a life, including one’s own, overrides all of the mitzvot(1), and therefore this sick person may bring their kamea into the bathroom.

On Shabbat 62a, an objection is raised about this practice of bringing sacred amulets into the bathroom. Perhaps the text was referring to a specific type of amulet, one encased in leather and therefore its sacred text is protected from debasement by the boundary that the leather creates:

[אלא] הכא במאי עסקינן - במחופה עור. - והרי תפילין, דמחופה עור, ותניא: הנכנס לבית הכסא - חולץ תפילין ברחוק ארבע אמות, ונכנס! - התם משום שי"ן. דאמר אביי: שי"ן של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני. ואמר אביי: דל"ת של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני. ואמר אביי: יו"ד של תפילין הלכה למשה מסיני.

Rather, what is the case that is being discussed here? It is discussing an amulet encased in leather, which may be brought into the bathroom because the sacred names are covered up.

But aren’t tefillin covered in leather, so if the leather over the writing“protects” that writing from defilement, shouldn’t they be able to brought into the bathroom? But wasn’t it taught in a braita: one who is entering into the bathroom should remove their tefillin four cubits outside of the bathroom and then enter, meaning that there is no difference for tefillin scrolls being covered in leather or not in respect to their inability to be brought into the bathroom?

No, the question of tefillin is irrelevant to our discussion, there, in that case, the reason they can’t be worn into the bathroom is because of the letter Shin embossed on the outside of the leather boxes. As Abaye said: The Shin on the tefillin is a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai. And Abaye said: The dalet on the tefillin is a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai. And Abaye said: The yud on tefillin is a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai. These three letters, commanded by God to Moshe on Mount Sinai, thus having great sanctity, all the more so compose the word Shaddai, the Almighty, a name of God. Therefore, the tefillin have sanctity even on the outside of their leather cases and differ from other amulets. They may not be worn or carried into the bathroom.

Unsurprisingly, another difficulty has been raised, what about tefillin, which are very similar to kameot? Even if they are not kameot, they have many similarities to healing kameot in that they are worn on the body, are certainly sacred as they contain texts with Hashem’s names written out, and are encased in leather, which would suggest that they may be brought into the bathroom. However, it is known that they may not be brought into the bathroom, as we saw as a major plot point in the story about Rebbi and his tefillin. Thus, the rabbis must find another explanation for why tefillin, even in their leather enclosures, are not considered enclosed and protected from the physical world. This reason, as quoted from Abaye, is that the tefillin are embossed with the letter ש, which we are taught was a mitzvah given explicitly to Moshe by Hashem at Sinai, even though it is not recorded in the Written Torah(2). Consequently, even the outside of the tefillin boxes, and even the leather straps, which form the ד and the י of the word שדי, the same Divine name written on the outside of the mezuzah scroll, are sacred. This is both because of their Sinaitic legal origins and the fact that they combine to form a Divine name on the outside and amongst the components of the tefillin. Tefillin are a lot like kameot, but are always sacred.(3)

The permissibility of wearing certified expert kameot out into the public domain on Shabbat is codified in the Shulhan Arukh, the prolific 16th law code of Rabbi Yosef Karo(4)(5):

אֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּקָמֵעַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻמְחֶה, וְאִם הוּא מֻמְחֶה יוֹצְאִין בּוֹ. לָא שְׁנָא אִתְמְחֵי גַּבְרָא וְלֹא קַמֵעַ כִּגוֹן שֶׁכָּתַב לַחַשׁ אֶחָד בְּשָׁלֹשׁ אִגְּרוֹת, וְרִפְּאוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּם שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁאִתְמְחֵי גַּבְרָא לְאוֹתוֹ לַחַשׁ בְּכָל פַּעַם שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ אֲבָל לֹא לִשְׁאָר לְחָשִׁים, וְגַם אֵין הַקָּמֵעַ מֻמְחֶה אִם יִכְתְּבֶנּוּ אַחֵר, לָא שְׁנָא אִתְמְחֵי קָמֵיעַ וְלֹא גַּבְרָא כְּגוֹן שֶׁכָּתַב לַחַשׁ אֶחָד בְּאִגֶּרֶת וְרִפֵּא בּוֹ ג' פְּעָמִים שֶׁאוֹתָהּ אִגֶּרֶת מֻמְחֶה לְכָל אָדָם; וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן אִי אִתְמְחֵי גַּבְרָא וְקָמֵעַ כְּגוֹן שֶׁכָּתַב לַחַשׁ אֶחָד בְּג' אִגְּרוֹת וְכָל אַחַת הוֹעִילָה לְג' אֲנָשִׁים אוֹ לְאָדָם אֶחָד ג' פְּעָמִים, אִתְמְחֵי גַּבְרָא לְלַחַשׁ זֶה בְּכָל אִגֶּרֶת שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ וְאִתְמְחוּ אִגְּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ לְכָל אָדָם. הַגָּה: . . . שָׁרֵי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ וּמַתִּירוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְשְׁרֶנּוּ בְּשִׁיר אוֹ בְּטַבַּעַת וְיֵצֵא בּוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, שֶׁאָז יֹאמְרוּ שֶׁיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ לְשֵׁם תַּכְשִׁיט וְזֶה אָסוּר, דְּלָאו תַּכְשִׁיט הוּא.

One may not go out on Shabbat with an amulet that is not recognized as expertly crafted, and if it is expertly crafted, she may go out with it on Shabbat. It makes no difference if the amulet-writer is recognized as an expert; for example if he wrote one inscription (literally a whisper, meaning an incantation or a charm) in three different amulets, and those three amulets healed three people of their ailments, as the amulet-writer would then be recognized as an expert for that inscription for any time he wrote it, but the certification would not extend to other inscriptions he might write, and similarly any amulet he wrote with another inscription would not be considered expertly crafted; or if the amulet itself is recognized as expertly crafted and the amulet-writer is not, for example if one wrote one inscription in an amulet (here the word used means letter or document) and it healed three times, then that inscription is considered expertly-crafted for any person. And all the more so if the amulet is both expertly-crafted and written by an expert writer, for example if one wrote one inscription on three separate amulets and each one was efficacious for three people or one person, three times, the amulet writer is considered expert for this inscription whenever he writes it and the amulets are considered expertly-crafted for anyone.

Hagah: . . . It is permitted to tie and untie the amulet in the public domain as long as she does not attach it to a bracelet or a ring and wear it out into the public domain, because in that case others would say that she was wearing it as jewelry, which would be forbidden to take on and off in the public domain on Shabbat, for an amulet is not jewelry.

The Hagah, the gloss, is the work of Rabbi Moshe Isserles, Karo’s contemporary, who lived in Poland. His comments often provide context to the differing practices in the Ashkenazi versus the Sephardic communities. Here, his comment explicates the significance of why one may not tie and untie an amulet on a bracelet or ring in the public domain on Shabbat. Kameot are not just jewelry, they are not just ornamentation, especially if they have sanctity.

Having established that the rabbis of the Bavli were aware of the practice of writing and wearing amulets and were not opposed to the practice, we learn one more caveat about their use from the following story:

רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר להו להני קראי וגאני היכי עביד הכי והאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה להגן שאני

It is related that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would recite these verses to protect him from evil spirits during the night and fall asleep while saying them. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi himself say: One is prohibited from healing himself with words of Torah? The Gemara answers: To protect oneself is different, as he recited these verses only to protect himself from evil spirits, and not to heal himself.(6)(7)

One may only use verses of Torah for protection from evil and disease, not to heal oneself. Kameot using verses are meant not as a remedy, but a preventative or precautionary measure.

1. The origin of this concept is that the obligation of pikuah nefesh overrides Shabbat. This discussion can be found in Bavli Yoma 85a-b. The original source is the Torah verse Leviticus 18:5 “וָחַ֣י בָּהֶ֑ם” “live by them [the mitzvot]”, which is read by the rabbis to teach that we are commanded to live by the mitzvot, not to die by them. There are three exceptions for this accepted premise: in Bavli Sanhedrin 74a, we learn that the only three exceptions to this rule, that is the only three transgressions a Jew must never commit, even at the cost of her own life. They are murder, forbidden sexual relationships (primarily incest), and idolatry. Any other mitzvah, including not desecrating holy objects by bringing them into the vicinity of a toilet and/or human waste, is overridden by the necessity of saving a life.
2. There are many such laws, which were transmitted from hoary antiquity (or at least the rabbis thought they were) and are thus given the status of explicit Biblical law. Another example is the crowns on the letters in the Torah Scroll. In Bavli Menahot 29b, there is a story where Moshe himself is confounded and then comforted by this concept.
3. One must ensure that her tefillin are contained in two barriers before bringing them into the bathroom (when this cannot be avoided, like in a place where they might be stolen or at an airport, for security reasons). This can be accomplished by always keeping them in a designated tefillin bag (which, fascinatingly enough, takes on its own level of sanctity because its sole purpose is to hold tefillin, and it must be buried in a grave when disposed of) which is then placed into another bag (like a backpack or suitcase). Alternatively, you can do what I do and use one of these tefillin cases, called a T’fidanit, which have a double layer case built in. They’re also great at protecting your tefillin from heat and humidity, and apparently the weight of a coach bus.
4. Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 301:25
5. Born in Spain in 1488, expelled to Portugal in 1492, expelled from Portugal in 1497. Rav Karo lived in several places in the Ottoman Empire, including Istanbul and Salonica. He finally settled and died in Tzfat in the Land of Israel, also under Ottoman rule.
6. Shevuot 15b
7. Translation courtesy of The William Davidson Talmud accessible on Sefaria.org.