JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

evil eye
wife” (moredet). The husband requested to summon her doctor
as witness to her mental condition, but the latter conditioned
his testimony on the wife’s agreement to waiving
medical confidentiality, which the wife refused to do. The
president of the Court, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, and Rabbi
Mordechai Eliyahu both held that the suspicion regarding
a mental impairment was firmly based and that the doctor
should therefore be compelled to testify to the court. On
the other hand, Rabbi Yosef Kafah ruled that the probative
value of the doctor’s testimony was minimal, as he would only
testify on her medical condition as it had been many years
back. On the other hand, the testimony was liable to cause
her serious damage, given that she was engaged in education
and would be derided by her students. Rabbi Kafah
therefore ruled that the doctor’s testimony should not be
required.
ACCEPTING EVIDENCE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE
TRIAL. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 3:8) states that “whenever
evidence is brought – it can contradict the ruling.” In
other words, after the trial’s conclusion, even if the obligation
ruled upon was discharged, the ruling can be annulled
if new evidence was brought before the court. In such
a case, a new trial must be held. The tannaim (ibid.) disputed
the issue of whether the Court can place a time limitation
on the period during which a litigant can proffer
new evidence. The law was decided according to R. Simeon
b. Gamaliel – namely, that the court cannot impose a time
limit on a litigant’s submission of new evidence which, irrespective
of when it was submitted, will be accepted. A limitation
on the submission of new evidence is only effective if
the litigant himself declared that he has no further evidence;
in such a case he is prevented from bringing further evidence
at a later stage (Maimonides,Yad, Sanhedrin 7:6–9; Sh. Ar.,
ḤM 20).
[Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]
Bibliography: Z. Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis nach
mosaisch-talmudischem Rechte (1846); J. Freudenthal, in: MGWJ, 9
(1860), 161–75; N. Hirsch, in: Jeschurun, 12 (Ger., 1865/66), 80–88,
109–22, 147–65, 249–58, 382–94; J. Klein, Das Gesetz ueber das gerichtliche
Beweisverfahren nach mosaisch-thalmudischem Rechte (1885);
Gulak, Yesodei, 4 (1922), passim; S. Assaf, Battei Din ve-Sidreihem
(1924), 102ff.; S. Rosenbaum, in: Ha-Mishpat, 1 (1927), 280–90; S.
Kaatz, in: Jeschurun, 15 (Ger., 1928), 89–98, 179–87; Z. Karl, in: Ha-
Mishpat ha-Ivri, 3 (1928), 89–127; A. Gulak, Le-Ḥeker Toledot ha-
Mishpat ha-Ivri bi-Tekufat ha-Talmud, 1 (Dinei Karka’ot, 1929), 66f.;
D.M. Shohet, The Jewish Court in the Middle Ages (1931), 171–85 (contains
bibliography); P. Dickstein, in: Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri, 4 (1932/33),
212–20; Herzog, Institutions, 1 (1936), 233, 255ff., 367ff.; 2 (1939),
185–8; ET, 1 (19513), 137–41; 2 (1949), 70f.; 3 (1951); 106–10; 4 (1952),
199–208; 6 (1954), 85, 106, 705–14; 7 (1956), 290–5; 8 (1957), 404–44,
609–23, 722–43; 9 (1959), 64–103, 156–7, 448–9, 722–46; 12 (1967),
307–13; A. Karlin, in: Ha-Peraklit, 11 (1954/55), 49–57, 154–61, 247–54;
12 (1955/56), 185–91; J. Ginzberg, Mishpatim le-Yisrael (1956), passim;
S. Fischer, in: No’am, 2 (1959), 211–22; E.E. Urbach, in: Mazkeret…
Herzog (1962), 395–7, 402–8; Jaeger, in: Recueils de la Société Jean
Bodin, 16 (1965); Ch. S. Hefez, in: Mishpatim, 1 (1969), 67ff.; Elon,
Mafte’aḥ, 279–302; J.S. Zuri, Mishpat ha-Talmud (1921), 38–64.
Add. Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:
423, 502–504, 649, 800f., 827; 3: 1377f., 1442, 1486f.; idem, Jewish
Law (1994), 2:516, 610f., 803, 981f., 1013; 4: 1646f., 1715, 1767f.; idem,
Jewish Law (Cases and Materials) (1999), 200ff; M. Elon and B. Lifshitz,
Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥakhmei Sefarad u-
Ẓefon Afrikah (1986), 1:135–42; 2:440–47; B. Lifshitz and E. Shohetman,
Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz,
Ẓarefat ve-Italyah (1997), 90–91, 298–304; S. Albeck, Ha-Re’ayot
de-Dinei ha-Talmud (1987); E. Shochetman, Seder ha-Din (1988),
269–317; D. Frimer, “Kevi’at Abbahut al-yedei Bedikat Dam ba-Mishpat
ha-Yisraeli u-va-Mishpat ha-Ivri,” in: Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri,
5 (5738), 219–42; Y. Ben Meir, “Re’ayot Nesibatiyyot ba-Mishpat ha-
Ivri,” in: Dinei Yisrael, 18 (5755–5756); Y. Ungar and A. Rachnitz
(eds.), Mishpatei Ereẓ, 2 (2004); I. Warhaftig, “Beirur Uvdot ba-Mishpat
toch Pegi’a be-Ẓeni’ut ha-Perat,” in: Mishpatei Ereẓ, 2 (2004),
220–21.
EVIL EYE (Heb. ערָה ָ ןִיע, ַ ayin ha-ra; lit., “the eye of the evil”;
Aram. אָׁ שי ּב ִ א ָניע, ֵ eina bisha), a widespread belief that some
persons may produce malevolent effects on others by looking
at them, based on the supposed power of some eyes to
bewitch or harm by glance. In early Jewish literature the acceptance
of the existence of the evil eye as fact precluded any
theoretical explanation of this phenomenon and discussion
of its origin. In post-talmudic literature, however, one of the
following two explanations is generally found: (1) the evil eye
contains the element of fire, and so spreads destruction (Judah
Loew b. Bezalel (“Maharal”) in Netivot Olam, 107d); (2) the
angry glance of a man’s eye calls into being an evil angel who
takes vengeance on the cause of wrath (Manasseh Ben Israel in
Nishmat Ḥayyim, 3:27; cf. Sefer Ḥasidim, ed. by J. Wistinetzki
(19242), 242 no. 981).
As both explanations imply magic, folk beliefs governing
magic and countermagic are evidenced in beliefs connected
with casting and averting the evil eye.
Casting the Evil Eye
Whereas a “good-eyed” person is generous and good-hearted,
the “evil eye,” in biblical (cf. I Sam. 18:9; Prov. 28:22) and tannaitic
(cf. Avot 2:9, 11; 5:13, 19) sources, denotes stinginess, selfishness,
and jealousy; in the aggadah of Palestinian amoraim
the evil eye is a prevalent motif. Furthermore, jealousy was
linked with magic and with fatal consequences. Hence, talmudic
and midrashic elaborations of biblical narratives represent
Sarah as casting the evil eye on Hagar (Gen. R. 4.45:5), Joseph’s
brothers on Joseph (ibid. 84:10), Og the giant on Jacob (Ber.
54b). Likewise, the evil eye caused the breaking of the first tablets
of the Law (Num. R. 12:4) and the death of Daniel’s three
companions (Sanh. 93a).
This magical power of the eye was not confined to biblical
evildoers; folk heroes, regarded as sacred wonder-workers,
were believed to have exercised it as well, but for benevolent
purposes. So R. *Simeon b. Yoḥai transforms an evil person
into “a heap of bones” by means of his magic endowment
(Shab. 34a; PdRK ed. by S. Buber (1868), 90a–b), and, with
a look, R. Johanan, the amora, kills a man who calumniated
584 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6