JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

Jerusalem (BB 75a). The magical aspect of the deed is stressed
in killing by transformation (Ber. 58a).
Averting the Evil Eye
Folk beliefs and folk customs are especially evident in the attitude
toward the aversion of the evil eye. All measures taken
against it are either (1) preventive or (2) counteractive.
(1) The belief that the evil eye is activated by arousing
the jealousy and malice of the “jettatori” (i.e., the endowed
people) calls for preventive measures of self-restraint, e.g.,
the avoidance of any expression of praise, approbation, and
of beauty, domestic or socioeconomic success, or happiness.
For this reason Abraham sent his son Isaac home at night after
the *Akedah (Gen. R. 56:11); Jacob advised his handsome and
strong sons not to enter the same gate all together “on account
of the eye” (ibid. 91:6); similarly, Joshua advised Ephraim and
Manasseh to hide in a forest (Josh. 17:15; BB 118a–b). Prominent
men, beautiful women, and newborn babies – all of
whom are likely to attract special attention – are especially
susceptible to the evil eye. If, however, the beauty is veiled,
riches not exhibited, and a child covered with a dirty bag or
given an ugly name, the happy event may pass unnoticed, and
the evil eye thus remains passive. Therefore, a costly garment
should not be spread over the bed when guests are visiting the
house as “it will be burned by the eye of the guests” (BM 30a),
and precious glass should be broken at a wedding. The idea
that “blessing comes only upon those things which are hidden
from the eye” (Ta’an. 8b) is undoubtedly connected with
such preventive measures.
(2) Once the evil eye has been activated, and the threat
of danger and harm is close to realization, there is no need
for preventive measures: only confrontation and war measures
based on countermagic which deceive or defeat the
evil eye can then save the endangered person. The use of
a mirror (ornament) or a specific color (red, blue) may blight
its source by reflecting the glance; an obscene gesture or a
holy verse (*amulet) may avert the evil eye by frightening
it; and an outstretched hand may stop its rays. According
to the Talmud (Ber. 55b), whoever is afraid of the evil eye
should stick his right thumb in his left hand and his left thumb
in his right hand, proclaiming: “I, so and so, son of so and
so, am of the seed of Joseph, whom the evil eye may not affect.”
The gesture (a “fig”) – universally used to avert the evil
eye by putting it to shame (this original meaning was probably
unknown to sages who prescribed it) – took on a Jewish
character by the pronouncement of the aggadic sentence
that the descendants of Joseph are immune from the evil eye
(Ber. 20a).
Other means of fighting and subduing the activated evil
eye stem from attempts to absorb the devastating glance, and
so to neutralize it. To divert the glance from the intended target,
“interesting” objects may be hung between the eyes of the
endangered person, e.g., precious stones, or as strange and
unexpected an object as a tail of a fox between the eyes of a
horse in need of protection (Tosef., Shab. 4:5).
evolution
The belief in the evil eye and the various means, both sacred
and profane, of averting it, were very prevalent among
East European Jews; to this day they exist in many Oriental
Jewish communities. In modern times the use of blue paint
and a metal amulet in the form of an open palm of the hand
are still widespread in Oriental communities, and among Yiddish-speaking
Ashkenazi Jews, it is customary to “qualify”
any praise with the phrase keyn ayen hore (“may there be no
evil eye” often shortened to kaynahora). The custom of tying
a red band around the wrist or neck of a newborn child also
derives from a fear of the evil eye. In Yiddish, even the name
“evil eye” is euphemistically called git-oyg (“good eye”). R. Lilienthal
(see bibl.) lists over 80 anti-evil eye practices recorded
among East European Jews. The striking resemblance to those
listed in monographs on Oriental Jewish communities (cf. Ḥ.
Mizraḥi, Yehudei Paras (1959), 115–7) can be explained by the
universality of the motif of the evil eye, on the one hand, and
its particular Jewish expression, on the other.
Bibliography: L. Blau, Das altjuedische Zauberwesen (in:
Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest fuer das Schuljahr
1897–98), 152–6; F.T. Elworthy, The Evil Eye (1895); Ginzberg,
Legends, index; M. Grunwald, in: MGJV, 5 (1900), 40f., 47f.; A. Loewinger,
in: Menorah (Vienna), 4 (1926), 551–69; R. Lilienthal, in: Yidishe
Filologye, 1 (1924); S. Seligmann, Der boese Blick und Verwandtes
(1910); idem, Die Zauberkraft des Auges (1922); S. Thompson, Motif-Index
of Folk-Literature, 2 (1956), 121 (D 993), 364ff. (D 2071); J.
Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (1939), 54–56, 283.
[Dov Noy]
EVIL-MERODACH (Heb. ְ ךדֹר ַ ְמ ליוִ א), ֱ son of *Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylonia from 562–560 B.C.E. The Babylonian
form of the name is Amēl Marduk (“man of Marduk”). During
Evil-Merodach’s reign, the stability of the royal court of
Babylon was undermined and there appeared the first signs
of the decline of the neo-Babylonian Empire. After two years
as king, he was assassinated, probably by his brother-in-law
Nergal-šar-uṣur (Nergal Sarezer), who succeeded him on the
throne (Jer. 39:3, 13). It is related in the Bible (II Kings 25:27–30;
Jer. 52:31–34) that Evil-Merodach freed *Jehoiachin, king of
Judah, from prison in the 37th year of Jehoiachin’s exile in
Babylon and that he accorded him a food allotment for life
and treated him better than his other vassals. His motives can
only be guessed at. He may have contemplated a far-reaching
reverse of his father’s policies.
Bibliography: Weisbach, in: E. Ebeling and B. Meissner
(eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 1 (1932), 94; Bright, Hist, 334;
EM, 1 (1965), 138–9, incl. bibl. Add. Bibliography: R. Sack, Amēl-
Marduk 562–560 B.C. (1972); idem, in: ABD II, 679; W. Holladay, Jeremiah
2 (1989), 291.
[Bustanay Oded]
EVOLUTION. Although evolutionary ideas are very old, being
found in the works of Greek philosophers and echoed in
the aggadah and the Midrash, the main stimulus to evolutionary
thought came from the theory developed at the end of the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 585