On the ruby segula

I have posted on the topic of sgulas in the past. I also once did a post on a proposed ruby gmach for women to borrow ruby jewelry either as a sgula to prevent miscarriage and/or have a easy birth. Gem quality rubies are rarer than diamonds, which is why any more affordable piece containing a ruby larger than a chip would likely incorporate a synthetic stone. In fact, you can find synthetic ruby pendants for under $30. I checked online. So I was wondering, can these gmachs purchase the affordable synthetic stones, or would only the natural gems be considered efficacious?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Baking and taking challah with a bracha is a much less expensive segula. The mkor is from Bameh Madlikin.

In general I'm not much of a segula person. Where'd the ruby one come from?
Chaim B. said…
Tesyaa - what in bameh madlikin are you referring to? Thanks

The ruby one is from Rabeinu Bachyei, Shmos 28:15 in his description of the "odem" stone (which was red, i.e. presumably a ruby).
Anonymous said…
the 3 mitzvos that women do not die in childbirth if they keep -- nida, hafrashas challa, hadlakas neros
Ariella's blog said…
but the wording is not that they won't die if they keep the mitzvos. Though the death in childbirth is attributed to laxness in these mitzovs, it does not state a guarantee that keeping them will prevent such a death. That is an inference. It is like saying that smoking leads to lung cancer. So not smoking makes sense for better health, but still, avoiding the obvious health hazard does not GUARANTEE that one will not get cancer.

For example, someone I know had a heart attack at 45. You may assume he did not exercise and eat right. But, in fact, he runs a fitness center and is very aware of nutrition. He said that his profile put him at very little risk. But he still had the heart attack.

I am certain that Rachel Immenu was scrupulous in challah, as in the other mitzvos. Yet, she died in childbirth because of other factors.
Chaim B. said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said…
Ariella, I see the logical fallacy, and I have no problem accepting it, although I had heard this as a segula for an easy labor. I would like to ask you and your readers, since I do not know the answer, if we can assume Rachel Imenu actually separated challah or was required in hilchos nida? The tradition may be such (and hadlakas neiros we have a strong tradition that it was started by Sarah Imenu), but we do not know this for a fact. Especially by hafrashas challah, who on earth was she separating challah for? Shevet Levi was in its infancy, so to speak, and the leviim were not involved in the service of the bais hamikdash, so why do we assume she had to be scrupulous in challah?

Have a good Shabbos!
Ariella's blog said…
I would venture that it is safe to say that the Immahos were scrupulous about such mitzovs. While the bracha found in the challah is identified with Sarah and then also associated with Rivka who took her place, there is no reason to assume that the last two Immahos behaved completely differently. My point in bringing up Rachel is that there are situations of danger even for a great tzadekes, and no red string, red stone, or other segula is a guaranteed safeguard.

Popular Posts