Daf Ditty Shabbes 61

Amulets
Shabbes 61b

‫ ֵאיֶזהוּ ָקֵמיַﬠ מוְּמֶחה — ֹכּל ֶשׁ ִריֵפּא ְשׁ<ָשׁה ְבֵּני ָאָדם ְכֶּאָחד‬:‫! ְוָהַת ְנָיא‬

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?

‫ ָהא — ִלְמּחוֵֹיי ְקִמיָﬠא‬,‫ ָהא — ִלְמּחוֵֹיי ַגְּבָרא‬:‫ָלא ַקְשָׁיא‬.

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.

‫ ְפִּשׁיָטא ִלי ְתָּלָתא ְקֵמיֵﬠי ִלְתָלָתא ַגְּבֵרי ְתָּלָתא ְתָּלָתא ִזיְמֵני — ִאיְתַמִחי ַגְּבָרא ְוִאְתַמִחי‬:‫ָאַמר ַרב ָפָּפּא‬
.‫ָקֵמיַﬠ‬
‫ ַחד ָקֵמיַﬠ ִלְתָלָתא ַגְּבֵרי‬.‫ ְקִמיָﬠא ָלא ִאיְתַמִחי‬,‫ְתָּלָתא ְקֵמיֵﬠי ִלְתָלָתא ַגְּבֵרי ַחד ַחד ִזיְמָנא — ַגְּבָרא ִאיְתַמִחי‬
‫ ַגְּבָרא ָלא ִאיְתַמִחי‬,‫— ְקִמיָﬠא ִאיְתַמִחי‬.

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.

?‫ אוֹ ָלא ִאיְתַמִחי‬,‫ ַגְּבָרא ִאיְתַמִחי‬.‫ ְתָּלָתא ְקֵמיֵﬠי ְלַחד ַגְּבָרא ַמאי? ְקִמיָﬠא ַוַדּאי ָלא ִאיְתַמִחי‬:‫ָבֵּﬠי ַרב ָפָּפּא‬
‫ ֵתּיקוּ‬.‫ אוֹ ִדיְלָמא ַמָזָּלא ְדַּהאי ַגְּבָרא הוּא ְדָּקא ְמַקֵבּל ְכָּתָבא‬,‫ִמי ָאְמ ִריַנן ָהא ַאִסּי ֵליהּ‬.

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.
In antiquity, it seems, not all amulets worked reliable. But what mattered most was
not the size, shape, material, or anything we can specifically pinpoint about the
amulet — but rather the person who made it. In other words, the rabbis explain, we
trust even unproven amulets if they are made by experts.

But what qualifies as an expert? Or a proven amulet for that matter? Further
discussion clarifies that an effective amulet is one that healed a person three times,
while an expert amulet maker is one whose amulets have healed three different
people. Much we learn about the notion of medical expertise “ Mumche” comes
from this sugya…paradoxically discussing amulets…

Amulets of antiquity did contain a great deal of writing, including examples of the
divine name. (see below for picture).

A Christian amulet dating to the sixth century C.E. containing passages from the
books of Psalms and Matthew. Photo: Courtesy University of Manchester.

Today, Jewish charms, such as the hamsa or red string, have remained popular,
though often without long incantations and only infrequently containing the divine
name. As was true back then, their efficacy and sacredness is subject to debate.

In 1904 Hans Spoer wrote:1

1
Hans H. Spoer, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 23, No. 2 (1904), pp. 97-105 Published by: The Society of Biblical
Literature
Of great interest is the horrific conflict between Reb Yonasan Eybeschütz and Reb
Yaacov Emden that tore European Jewry apart in the 1700’s. The accusation was
made that Reb Yonasan was a secret Sabbatean. It finally was exposed that some
amulets he had written had acrostics for Shabtai Zvi.

J J Schachter’s work on Reb Yaakov Emden2 clearly shows the ferocity and
psychological obsessiveness by which he pursued Reb Eybeschütz

2
Jacob J. Schacter, “History and Memory of Self: The Autobiography of Rabbi Jacob Emden,” in Elisheva Carlebach, John M.
Efron, and David N. Myers, eds., Jewish History and Jewish Memory: Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi (Hanover
and London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 428-452
Prof Sid Leiman has written extensively on this controversy focusing on the amulet
in question.3

Here is the copy of the actual kameya in discussion:

3
http://ww.leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/95.%20New%20Evidence%20on%20the%20Emden-
Eibeschuetz%20Controversy%20The%20Amulets%20from%20Metz.pdf
From 1751 to 1764, European Jewry was riven by a very public dispute between two
of the most revered talmudic scholars of the day: Jacob Emden and Jonathan
Eybeschütz.

It began when the former accused the latter of being a secret follower of the 17th-
century messianic pretender Shabbetai Tsvi—and therefore, a heretic. Shnayer
Leiman comments on this and also on the oft-forgotten role of another esteemed
rabbi, Jacob Joshua Falk: The Pnei Yehoshua,

Emden’s animosity toward Eybeschütz . . . could easily be explained away on

grounds that are not necessarily bound up with an accusation of heresy. . . . In his
autobiography, and certainly in his polemical works, Emden often emerges as a
misanthropic, tempestuous, cantankerous, chronically ill, and incessantly whining
social misfit and rabbinic genius who did not suffer either fools or [other] rabbinic
scholars gladly. (From Mosaic magazine:4)

R. Emden, whose father and grandfather had served as chief rabbis of [the triple
community of] Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek surely felt that he should have been
appointed to succeed them. That he had to live in Altona for some fifteen years
[while Eybeschütz held this position] was simply more than he could bear.

It is far more difficult to explain away Jacob Joshua Falk’s animosity toward
Eybeschütz on grounds other than the accusation of heresy. . . . During the key early
years of the controversy, from 1751 until 1756, the campaign against Eybeschütz
was directed primarily by Falk, then serving as chief rabbi of Frankfurt-am-Main;
virtually everyone agreed that no other rabbi in the mid-18th century was in a better
position to resolve the controversy.

Yet there are reports that Falk was blind. If so, he would not have been able to
examine the amulets bearing kabbalistic incantations composed by Eybeschütz,
which were the original basis for the accusations. Leiman, in a thorough
investigation of the evidence, shows that it is unlikely Falk was blind when the
controversy began—and notes, tellingly, that the earliest source stating that he was
can be found in a letter written by Eybeschütz’s son.

This tragic episode damaged the prestige of the rabbinate forever. It allowed the
Haskallah and crypto-Sabbateans more power.

4
https://seforimblog.com/2019/11/the-alleged-blindness-of-r-jacob-joshua-falk-during-the-emden-eibeschuetz-
controversy/