חדש באתר: NotebookLM עם כל תכני הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: The Evil Eye

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

The Evil Eye

Question

Hello Rabbi,
I have a friend who tells me that lately he has had a lot of misfortunes, and he thinks it is because of the evil eye. To me that sounds strange. The point is that there are sources in the Sages that such a concept exists. What is the Rabbi's opinion about the matter of the evil eye nowadays? And what should I advise my frightened friend?

Answer

The Talmud itself says that the evil eye does not affect someone who does not believe in it. In my view, that means it is only psychological harm. But even if not—still, if he adopts a rationalist attitude, he will not be harmed.
The sources in the Sages may express a position that was accepted in their time. There is no need to say that the Sages understood this better than we do. It is also possible that reality has changed and nowadays the evil eye does not affect people. At any rate, I am not aware of evidence that it works.

Discussion on Answer

Nachum (2019-12-01)

The Talmud talks about pairs. Is there also a Talmudic passage about the evil eye? I didn't know that. Where is it found?

Michi (2019-12-01)

For example, Berakhot 55b. Also Bava Batra and elsewhere. You can search online (including Wikipedia) for references to the evil eye, and you will find quite a few reassuring statements. Maimonides systematically omitted these mystical laws, and Rabbi Ovadia writes that only pests worry about this nowadays.

Po (2019-12-05)

But it is explicit in the Talmud that despite "one who is not particular," one still needs to be concerned. Meaning, it is not just a placebo. Maybe the Sages really did not know when it was placebo and when it was objective. And therefore, they said to be concerned. What do you think?

Michi (2019-12-05)

Anything is possible. But if they did not know, then they also cannot tell me not to be concerned when I am not concerned. Maybe I am mistaken, and in this case one really should be concerned? So doubt is not an explanation.

השאר תגובה

Back to top button