What is a “good eye”?

The custom of the moral overseers in the yeshivots is to frequently mention in their sermons "a good eye." I have never understood what this "good eye" is. Does the rabbi know what they mean?

I think the intention is to look favorably (as opposed to the evil eye, which is a look of envy and envy). This is what the Sages call a good eye, as opposed to an evil eye.
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/16323

It's a shame the rabbi didn't delete it.

In the Sages, a good eye does not appear as a complimentary look, etc.
A good eye and an evil eye are two opposites, according to the Mishnah (Terumoth D'Gior): A beautiful eye is one of four.
The House of Shammai Omri says: Three. And a wise one is one of five. And an evil one is one of six.
It should be noted that an evil eye is one of six. It is also a concept that stands on its own as stated in the Gemara (Berakhot 55:2): “Whoever is able to take a wife from the land of Israel, and who Does the Rabbi agree that removing the concept of a “good eye” from its original context has de facto caused the corruption of human morality, that is, moral degradation, for example: a Jew sees his friend acting contrary to morality, and refrains from admonishing him so that he may improve his actions, and this is because he has a “good eye” and does not see flaws in his friend.
Thus, society continues to exist in lawlessness while removing all restraint and preventing.
The above is an exceptional example of how the distortion of the intention of the sage causes the opposite result of the intention of the distorted one (the “moralist”).
Does the Rabbi agree with what I am saying or am I mistaken without realizing it?

I completely disagree. In my opinion, your words are an example, unfortunately not an exception, of the distortions of a biased interpretation. The interpretation of the good and bad eye in the Sages is exactly as I described, except that among the Sages, like their other contemporaries, there was a perception that looking at the evil eye also brings harm to the one being looked at (at least if he fears it). The moralists refined the essential-moral element and gave up on superstitions. You are probably recommending that we keep only the superstitions and give up on morality, and all in the name of improving the world.. The wonders of bias.
And even if this were not the correct interpretation, I fail to see what harm it brings. On the contrary, it brings a great deal of moral benefit (even if I do not look at it with a particularly good eye). Only a bad eye on this interpretation can see it as bad. I recommend that you adopt the recommendation of the moralists on the matter.
By the way, a good eye does not mean ignoring shortcomings and/or not criticizing them. This is an interpretive error in the Mishnah of the Fathers. See the commentaries on the Mishnah of the Fathers on “And He will judge every person with the right hand”.

Rabbi Mikhi, after searching and not finding:
1) Where does the commentary in Chazal appear as the Rabbi described?
2) In my question, I brought the Gemara (in Berakhot 52 b) as evidence that there is no connection between the "good eye" and the concept of the "evil eye" (perceived as causing harm), and this is a common mistake that many good people make. The opposite context for the "good eye" appears in the Mishnah in Terumot cited above.
3) What is the essential "moral" element that the "moralists" have distilled from superstition? Rather, what is the evidence that the words of the "moralists" Are nothing but superstitions themselves, does the rabbi know of a single person who has become more moral from studying their teachings and methods?
4) The rabbi took my words out of context, where did I recommend leaving the superstitions, on the contrary, I would be happy if all those beliefs could be removed from the world (tuff, tuff, hamsa, hamsa). ?
5) What is the moral benefit that the ”good eye” brings, in short, a person learns to lie to himself under the guise of morality, invents for himself a forced “utopian” world without a grip on reality?

With thanks in advance and &#8221good eye”, with blessings and great appreciation

1-2. I will return again. In the Mishnah, the Fathers contrast a good eye with an evil eye (the disciples of Balaam and Abraham). An evil eye that causes harm does so because of the gaze of an evil eye. Therefore, the interpretation of an evil eye as a harm (the issue of blessings that you brought up, and there are others) does not contradict the interpretation of an evil eye as a blemish and a gaze of envy. It is envy that causes the harm of the evil eye. And against this there is a good eye, which is a benevolent gaze. Now, let's reduce the harm (which is probably a superstition) and stick with this interpretation.
Bartnura Avot 5:9:
A good eye is one who is content with what he has and does not covet the wealth of others. Indeed, we find in Abraham who said to the king of Sodom (Genesis 14) "If from a thread to a shoelace, and if I take all that you have:
And likewise there, Proverbs 2:9:
A good eye is content with what he has and does not ask for extra things and is not jealous when he sees that his friends have more than him:
Exactly the opposite of an evil eye.
And with regard to the provision of giving, this is also the same interpretation: a good eye is generous and not stingy and spares his wealth and envies others who have more, and an evil eye is the opposite.
I did not take your words out of context. You complained that the moralists changed the Talmudic interpretation of an evil eye. The Talmudic interpretation is the prayerful akhona, and you wanted to leave that.
I explained everything else.
Okay, I've exhausted it.

In the 7th of Sivan, 5721

According to our Rabbi Yonah in his commentary on the Fathers, a “good eye” is “generosity of heart,” while a “good heart” is the quality of will [= תרצחות. שערבות] This is the patient one who is not short-tempered, and who avoids the quality of anger and responds with a soft response. Even if someone does something bad to him, he will endure it and there is no bitterness in his mouth, for he has waited for favors and is full of sweets.

These things come up nicely with the simple readings in the book of Proverbs: He who has a good eye will be blessed because he gives of his wealth to the poor; he is generous of heart and “good of heart.” He is the one who rejoices in his lot, as it is written, “All the days of the poor are evil, but the good-hearted one has a feast continually” (15:15), and our Rabbi Yonah (ibid.) explained that “the good-hearted one” even though he is poor has good days because he rejoices in his lot. And this quality is the foundation of the quality of gentleness, which stems from a person’s ability to “take into proportion” his problems and difficulties, and therefore be less angry with others.

With blessings, Sh’aretz

According to the words of the Rabbi (cited in the book “Shichat Avot” by Rabbi Yitzhak Dadon, “a good heart” is the desire to do good to others. While “a good eye” is the look that praises the world even in its current state (even though it is far from complete.

Thus writes the Rabbi (Ein Ayah P’2 Aut Tze):
“The foundation of all moral opinions is that they depend on the quality of the outlook on life, with a good or bad eye. If the life that exists pleases the one who looks at it in its physicality and spirituality, then all moral and general opinions will follow in accordance and reconciliation with the current state of life and society, and my path will follow a quiet and peaceful path without overwhelming the present, and according to this path all theoretical opinions will also be in accordance with Yes.

Someone who looks at the present situation with a ’minor criticism’, as a negative situation that requires uprooting from the root – will find it very difficult to work towards correction and improvement gradually and patiently.

On the other hand, someone who knows how to discern the points of light and goodness that exist in the present – will find it easier to work towards nurturing and strengthening them, until they become the dominant factor in the person and society that they want to improve. And these things are parallel to the words of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov (in Torah Refav ‘Azmra’), when the emphasis is placed on the ’soon’that remains healthy – it can be nurtured and strengthened until ’a little of the light repels a lot of the darkness’.

According to this explanation of the ’eye Good thing’ that in the words of Rabbi Eliezer, the connection with the three things that Rabbi Eliezer would emphasize is well understood: ‘Let your friend's honor be as dear to you as your own, and do not be quick to anger’ Be patient with others, but on the other hand, do not be patient with your own shortcomings, but hurry to correct them ‘and again the day before your death’ and do not postpone until tomorrow, for who knows if there will be tomorrow. And be patient with others, your friends and your students, but do not rely on the patience of your rabbis, ‘but be careful not to be burned by their embers’.

Rabbi Eliezer teaches us to be careful with the honor of your friends, and even more so with the honor of your rabbis, to be patient with your friends, and on the other hand, not to be patient with your shortcomings, but hurry to correct them in a good hour First.

Best regards, Sh”t

In response to ‘The explanation of our Lord Yonah…’, paragraph 2, line 4
… It is the foundation of the measure of patience. …

In response to ‘According to the evidence of Kook’, paragraph 3, line 1
… He who knows how to discern…

You quoted a verse from Eyin Aya:
“The basis of all moral opinions is that they depend on the quality of the outlook on life, whether good or bad.
If the life that exists pleases the one who looks at it in its physicality and spirituality – then all moral and general opinions will follow in accordance and reconciliation with the state of life and society in the present, and their paths will follow a quiet and peaceful path without overwhelming the present, and according to this path all theoretical opinions will also fit.”
What is the claim here? That moral opinions are not a direct decision but a (deterministic) result of a “view on life”? It is certainly possible that someone who is good at life will not be a sweating revolutionary, but what does that have to do with opinions? For example, in my opinion, I need to make some serious revolutions in the world, but the truth is that right now the system in general is playing in my favor (and it is reasonable for me to assume that revolutions will harm this favor). I will not spend my whole life trying to adequately compensate miserable workers in the third world, but there is no doubt that in my opinion it is the right and justified thing to do. How would you explain such an opinion?

To the point,

Review Edmund Burke's book on the French Revolution, which describes how in England those who acted with moderation, and did not angrily destroy the old order,

were much more successful in improving the condition of the people.

He who thinks that the present is only bad and bad

fails to move anything, but ends up either in complete despair or in a bloodbath; on the other hand, he who acts with moderation

warns against evil but also encourages the good points

is the one who succeeds in constantly and patiently correcting and improving.

And as Archimedes taught us, the world cannot be moved without one stable

Best regards, Sh”

Are you saying that in this passage Rabbi Kook essentially reiterated the basic conservative position? This is a pragmatic consideration (which I accept), and not an opinion on what lies at the root of every person's moral views. Even a revolutionary understands very well that the current situation is better than anarchy, but thinks that the prospect of profit from a revolution is preferable in certain cases.
My perception of morality and economics, for example, has changed dramatically over the course of a few years without my personal situation changing significantly (relative to the forecast).