web analytics
November 21, 2014 / 28 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘dispute’

Bet Din On The Clock: Nathan Lewin Wants Jewish Courts To Run More Efficiently

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Like other chassidic dynasties, Bobov was not immune to one day experiencing a schism.

When Rabbi Naftali Zvi Halberstam, the fourth Bobover Rebbe, died in 2005, a dispute arose over who would succeed him. Some chassidim sought to appoint his younger half-brother, Rabbi Ben Zion Aryeh Leibish Halberstam, as the next rebbe; and others sought out the fourth rebbe’s sons-in-law: Rabbi Mordechai Dovid Unger as the rebbe, and Rabbi Yehoshua Rubin as the Bobov rav (serving as head of the bet din and as the posek).

The sons-in-law hired noted Supreme Court attorney Nathan Lewin as their lawyer, and the case came before Justice Herbert Kramer in the New York State Supreme Court.

According to Lewin, he was instrumental in successfully moving the case to bet din. That was nearly seven years ago.

The case has been before a unique kind of zabla that entire time. In most zabla cases, the plaintiff chooses one dayan (judge), the defendant a second, and those two dayanim choose the third. In the Bobov case, the two dayanim, with the consent of the litigants, chose three others, creating a five-person bet din.

Lewin – who has not served as his clients’ to’ein (court advocate) and has therefore not been deeply involved in the case since its move to the bet din – said that had he known the case would take so long, he would never have supported sending it to a bet din without conditions that the case be decided in a timely fashion.

“I never anticipated this. I’m disappointed it has taken so long,” Lewin recently said on Zev Brenner’s radio program. On the show, Lewin proposed that a solution to the problem of batei din be consumer-driven.

“If the arbitration clause – the shtar beirurim – says that the case must be arbitrated within six months or a year, [the dayanim] would have to follow it,” he said. “And that could be a recourse [to preventing these kinds of long delays.]”

How often such gruelingly long cases occur in batei din is hard to quantify. Statistics are nearly impossible to come by because no central body enforces rules within batei din or oversees them in any fashion, which is part of the problem, some critics say

“There’s so much less procedural regularity. Nothing prevents to’anim from running away with the case,” Lewin said on the radio show. “I’ve seen dayanim who have answered their cell phones in the middle of a case. In secular court, there’s more respect for the procedures and for the institution.”

But several say that the Bobov case is once-in-a-lifetime exception, and even cases that go on for more than a year or two are a rarity, not the rule.

Rabbi A. Yehuda Warburg, a dayan with the Beth Din of America for the past 12 years, said he’s heard of only one other case taking very long, and that one took over two years.

Rabbi Mendel Epstein, a Brooklyn to’ein for the last 30 years, agreed. He called the Bobov case “a rare exception.”

Rabbi Epstein added, “In the secular courts, the judges can say you have five days to present all arguments. But in beis din, it’s different, because if a person says he’s not finished, then the halacha is that you can’t stop him. You have to let him fully present his case.”

“You have to remember,” he added, “that they are judging over hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate, and it’ll affect thousands of [families].” A case with such magnitude takes time.

Another factor in the Bobov Case, Rabbi Epstein said, is the fact that there are five dayanim, as opposed to the usual three. “That alone will cause you an extra amount of extra time – you need all five to be there, and one of the judges lives in Manchester, so he has to adjust his schedule [to come over for hearings].”

Likewise, Rabbi Warburg said, “They picked three more judges than usual – that is surely one of the reasons that this is taking so long.”

“Five automatically creates a bureaucratic problem. Everything has to be resolved with the other three who are sitting there.”

One person who has thought about why the Bobov case has taken so long – and has witnessed many of the hearings – is Moishe Zvi Reicher, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania and a Bobov chassid who has advised Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin in the dispute.

(The side that supports Rabbi Unger and Rabbi Rubin is known as Bobov 45, since they’ve set up batei midrash, yeshivas and other buildings mostly on 45th Street in Boro Park. The other side is known as Bobov 48, since they’ve maintained control of nearly all of the Bobov possessions from the previous rebbe – located mostly on 48th Street – which are in dispute before the current zabla.)

Nationwide Local Authorities Strike Ends

Tuesday, January 17th, 2012

The director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office and the head of the Union of Local Authorities have signed a Memorandum of Understanding ending their dispute and the two-day old strike that paralyzed towns and cities nationwide.

The details of the agreement have not yet been released.

Q & A: Ayin Hara (Part VI)

Thursday, December 29th, 2011

Question: I know there is a dispute in the Gemara regarding ayin hara, the evil eye. Can you discuss the origin of it?

Ben Glassman
(Via E-Mail)

Answer: The Rambam (Hilchot Gezela v’Aveidah 13:11) and the Mechaber (Choshen Mishpat 267:18) write that one who finds a garment must periodically air it out, but not when there are guests around. This halacha is based on Bava Metzia 29b, which mentions two reasons for this rule – either because of ayin hara or because of possible theft. Neither the Rambam nor the Mechaber mention the ayin hara concern. The Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Hashavat Aveidah 267:11) notes that the finder may air out the garment before guests if he is sure they are people of integrity, in which case, there is no concern of theft or the evil eye. The Bach, to the Tur (C.M. ad loc.), argues that the Rambam and the Mechaber only mention theft and not ayin hara because the concern of theft is easier for the general populace to understand.

We find that our forefathers’ and mothers’ actions at times have been influenced by the evil eye. According to the Midrash Rabbah, Hagar miscarried due to the ayin hara that Sarah cast upon her. And the Talmud (Ta’anit 10b, see Rashi) states that the only reason Jacob sent his sons to go down to Egypt to buy food was to ward off the evil eye (Jacob, in fact, had enough food to eat).

The evil eye should not always concern us. R. Yochanan asserts in Tractate Berachot (20a) that he has no fear of the evil eye since he descends from Joseph. R. Yossi ben R. Chanina explains that the evil eye has no power over the eye (i.e., Joseph) that chose not to partake of that which did not belong to it (the wife of his master Potiphar). Tractate Berachot (55b) suggests that one who is afraid of the evil eye should, among other things, request protection in Joseph’s merit. Possibly all Jews enjoy this protection (see Rashi and Metzudat David [Tehillim 80:2]). If we are immune to the destructive power of the evil eye, Rav’s statement about a cemetery, “Ninety-nine died as a result of the evil eye, and only one naturally” (Tractate Bava Metzia 107b), perhaps refers to people who are overly ostentatious and thus more susceptible to the evil eye (Yefei Einayim).

It seems there are two types of evil eye. One is the evil eye of wicked who intend harm, which has no power over Jews and ultimately destroys the wicked person himself, even if he is a Jew (as Rabbenu Yona explains based on Avot 2:11). The other type is the evil eye of the righteous, which does affect Jews, particularly the wicked (Tractate Ketubbot 103b; see also Tractate Berachot 58a about a Sadducee who contradicted R. Sheshet and became a heap of bones, as well Tractate Shabbos 33b-34a, which records a similar incident with R. Shimon b. Yochai).

Resultant damage from the evil eye is termed hezek re’eyah – damage caused by looking at someone else’s property (Bava Batra 2b) – and the Gemara details halachot about constructing partitions to prevent it. A person is entitled to a degree of privacy on his premises and more so within his house.

Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, zt”l (Michtav Me’Eliyahu vol. 3: p.313) explains (citing Eruvin 64b and Rashi) that the wealthy should perform mitzvot with their wealth to protect it from the evil eye, as ostentation causes jealousy which invites ayin hara.

* * * *

Many people would be surprised at the number of everyday situations where we take ayin hara into account. For example, the Mechaber (Orach Chayyim 230:2, based on Bava Metzia 42a) rules that when one is about to measure new grain [the new season’s growth], he recites a blessing, “Yehi ratzon milfanecha Hashem Elokeinu shetishlach beracha b’chri hazeh – May it be your will O L-rd, our G-d, that You send blessing upon this pile.” When one begins to actually measure, he recites, “Baruch Hashole’ach beracha b’chri hazeh – Blessed is He who sends [His] blessing upon this pile.” If, however, he has already started measuring he shouldn’t say the blessing as it would be a prayer uttered in vain. Why? Because blessing is only found in that which is hidden from the eye.

Our sages derived this concept from the pasuk in Prashat Ki Tavo (Deuteronomy 28:8) “Yetzav Hashem itcha et ha’beracha ba’asamecha – Hashem will command the blessing for you in your storehouses.” From the word “asamecha – storehouses,” they extrapolate that blessing applies to that which is “samui – hidden,” i.e., the quantity is yet unknown. The Maharsha (Bava Metzia ibid.) explains that the reason this is necessary due to ayin hara.

There is a dispute whether one should use the Divine name – Shem u’Malchut – when reciting this beracha. The Ritvah (novella to Bava Metzia ad. loc.) argues that one does. Ramban (novella, ad loc.), on the other hand, writes that one recites Shem u’Malchut only when separating terumot and maasarot.

Q & A: Ayin Hara (Part V)

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

Question: I know there is a dispute in the Gemara regarding ayin hara, the evil eye. Can you discuss the origin of it?

Ben Glassman
(Via E-Mail)

Answer: The Rambam (Hilchot Gezela v’Aveidah 13:11) and the Mechaber (Choshen Mishpat 267:18) write that one who finds a garment must periodically air it out, but not when there are guests around. This halacha is based on Bava Metzia 29b, which mentions two reasons for this rule – either because of ayin hara or because of possible theft. Neither the Rambam nor the Mechaber mention the ayin hara concern. The Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Hashavat Aveidah 267:11) notes that the finder may air out the garment before guests if he is sure they are people of integrity, in which case, there is no concern of theft or the evil eye. The Bach, to the Tur (C.M. ad loc.), argues that the Rambam and the Mechaber only mention theft and not ayin hara because the concern of theft is easier for the general populace to understand.

We find that our forefathers’ and mothers’ actions at times have been influenced by the evil eye. According to the Midrash Rabbah, Hagar miscarried due to the ayin hara that Sarah cast upon her. And the Talmud (Ta’anit 10b, see Rashi) states that the only reason Jacob sent his sons to go down to Egypt to buy food was to ward off the evil eye (Jacob, in fact, had enough food to eat).

The evil eye should not always concern us. R. Yochanan asserts in Tractate Berachot (20a) that he has no fear of the evil eye since he descends from Joseph. R. Yossi ben R. Chanina explains that the evil eye has no power over the eye (i.e., Joseph) that chose not to partake of that which did not belong to it (the wife of his master Potiphar). Tractate Berachot (55b) suggests that one who is afraid of the evil eye should, among other things, request protection in Joseph’s merit.

There is some discussion about whether all Jews enjoy this protection from the evil eye. Rashi and Metzudat David (to Tehillim 80:2) explain that since Joseph sustained his brothers and their families in Egypt, they are referred to by his name and enjoy his protection. The statement of Rav about a cemetery, “Ninety-nine died as a result of the evil eye, and only one naturally” (Tractate Bava Metzia 107b), perhaps refers to people who are overly ostentatious and thus more susceptible to the evil eye (Yefei Einayim).

It seems there are two types of evil eye. One is the evil eye of wicked who intend harm, which has no power over Jews and ultimately destroys the wicked person himself, even if he is a Jew (as Rabbenu Yona explains based on Avot 2:11). The other type is the evil eye of the righteous, which does affect Jews, particularly the wicked (Tractate Ketubbot 103b; see also Tractate Berachot 58a about a Sadducee who contradicted R. Sheshet and became a heap of bones, as well Tractate Shabbos 33b-34a, which records a similar incident with R. Shimon b. Yochai).

* * * *

What do we really mean when we speak of the resultant damage from the evil eye? The Gemara (Bava Batra 2b) refers to this as hezek re’eyah – damage caused by looking at someone else’s property. The Gemara forbids one to look at another person’s field when produce is growing, and Rashi (s.v. “asur l’adam she’ya’amod”) explains this is due to the evil eye. We are concerned that an ayin hara will affect the produce.

Even though the Gemara is clear that only in such or similar instances do we classify the damage as due to the evil eye, it would nevertheless seem that all hezek re’eyah has an undertone of ayin hara.

The concept of hezek re’eyah, in general, is that a person is entitled to a degree of privacy when using his own premises. If he is within his house then there is an even greater expectation of privacy (as Rashi notes, s.v.”hezeka d’bayit sha’ani”) since a person engages in matters that are more private; hence, there are issues of personal modesty which might be violated if this expected privacy is breached.

It is thus understandable that today, in the course of either the construction or renovation of a house, a large fence will be erected all about the property or, at a minimum, the houses’ windows will be covered or clouded to protect the family from unwanted viewing. Though the fence this may be required by city ordinance to protect passerby from any falling debris, we might nevertheless attribute some of this safeguard to a concern of ayin hara; we don’t want any mishap in the course of construction (just like the Gemara is concerned about the produce in the field).

Q & A: Ayin Hara (Part IV)

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

Question: I know there is a dispute in the Gemara regarding ayin hara, the evil eye. Can you discuss the origin of it?

Ben Glassman
(Via E-Mail)

Answer: The Rambam (Hilchot Gezela v’Aveidah 13:11) and the Mechaber (Choshen Mishpat 267:18) write that one who finds a garment must periodically air it out, but not when there are guests around. This halacha is based on Bava Metzia 29b, where the Gemara mentions two reasons for avoiding displaying a found garment before guests – either because of ayin hara or because of possible theft. Neither the Rambam nor the Mechaber mention the ayin hara concern. The Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Hashavat Aveidah 267:11) records the same halacha but adds that the finder may air out the garment before guests if he is sure they are people of integrity, in which case, there is no concern of theft or the evil eye. The Bach, to the Tur (C.M. ad loc.), argues that the Rambam and the Mechaber only mention theft and not ayin hara because the concern of theft is easier for the general populace to understand.

We find that our forefathers’ and mothers’ actions at times have been influenced by the evil eye. According to the Midrash Rabbah, Hagar miscarried due to the ayin hara that Sarah cast upon her. And the Talmud (Ta’anit 10b, see Rashi) states that the only reason Jacob sent his sons to go down to Egypt to buy food was to ward off the evil eye (Jacob, in fact, had enough food to eat). According to Bereishit Rabbah 91:6, he also instructed them enter Egypt through separate gates for the same reason (they were all tall and handsome).

The evil eye should not always concern us. R. Yochanan asserts in Tractate Berachot (20a) that he has no fear of the evil eye since he descends from Joseph. R. Yossi ben R. Chanina explains that the evil eye has no power over the eye (i.e., Joseph) that chose not to partake of that which did not belong to it (the wife of his master Potiphar). Tractate Berachot (55b) suggests that one who is afraid of the evil eye should, among other things, say “I…am of the seed of Joseph over whom the evil eye has no effect.”

There is some discussion about whether all Jews enjoy this protection from the evil eye. Rashi and Metzudat David (to Tehillim 80:2) explain that since Joseph sustained his brothers and their families in Egypt, they are referred to by his name. If we are immune to the destructive power of the evil eye, however, the following statement by Rav about a cemetery is problematic: “Ninety-nine died as a result of the evil eye, and only one naturally” (Tractate Bava Metzia 107b).

* * * * *

Let us refer back to the matriarch Sarah and Hagar’s miscarriage. Why did Sarah’s ayin hara have such a great effect? The answer seems to lay in the unique ability we attribute to the righteous, colloquially referred to as “Tzaddik gozer v’Hakadosh Baruch Hu mekayyem – The righteous decrees and G-d upholds.”

Tractate Ketubbot (103b) describes what happened after Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi died. According to Rabbi Yehuda’s deathbed wish, R. Chanina ben Chama was to have succeeded him as head of the academy. R. Chanina, however, did not accept the position because R. Affes was older, and so R. Affes presided at the academy. He, however, died soon afterward. The Gemara concludes: “Since Rabbi [Yehuda Hanassi] decreed that R. Chanina ben Chama should preside at the academy, there could be no possibility of him not becoming head, for about the righteous it is written (Job 22:28), “vetigzar omer v’yakam lach – you would utter a decree and it would be done.” Indeed, such is the power of the righteous – they decree and G-d upholds their decree.

The Gemara in Tractate Shabbos (63a) goes even further, stating, “R. Assi – others say R. Chanina – said, ‘Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, issues a decree, he [the righteous man] can dispose of it.’ ” Tractate Mo’ed Katan (16b) comments on the verse (II Samuel 23:3), “Amar Elokei Yisrael li dibber tzur Yisrael, Moshel ba’adam tzaddik, moshel yir’at Elokim – The G-d of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me [King David], ruler over man shall be the righteous, he that rules with the fear of G-d.” R. Abahu says that this verse is to be interpreted thus: The G-d of Israel said to David, “I rule man; who influences Me? the righteous – for I issue a decree and he [the righteous] may dispose of it.”

All this points to the power of the righteous man, the tzaddik. We might perhaps find an explanation to this phenomenon in a Midrash preceding the one cited above about Jacob sending his sons to buy food in Egypt. The Midrash states, “From the day Joseph was kidnapped, the Divine Inspiration departed from Jacob [for Jacob was in mourning, and the Divine Inspiration does not rest upon man in gloom]. He would see and not see, hear and not hear.” Scripture (Genesis 42:1) informs us that “Jacob saw that there was corn [being sold] in Egypt.” Actually, Jacob could not literally see what was going on in Egypt. Indeed, in the next verse Jacob tells his sons, “I have heard that there is corn [being sold] in Egypt.” The Midrash (which is quoted by Rashi) points out that we have to interpret “shever” (literally, food being sold) as “sever,” hope. Jacob saw in a prophetic inspiration that his hope – i.e., Joseph – was in Egypt.

What We Can Learn From The Old New York Knicks

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011

The delayed start of the professional basketball season due to a labor dispute has left me indifferent. It has been many years since I watched an entire game, even more since I actually attended one in person. There are simply better and more enjoyable ways to utilize my time, not to mention that, realistically, “professional” basketball has unfortunately not been played in the metropolitan area for some time.

To someone who was an avid Knicks fan in his youth, reared on the glories of the Knick championship teams now almost four decades gone, much of professional basketball has become unwatchable – a parade of dunking, jumping and individual efforts more suitable to TV highlights than to success in a team sport.

That is why I read with great delight Harvey Araton’s recently-released When the Garden was Eden, a chronicle of those glorious Knicks teams of Reed and Frazier, Bradley and DeBusschere, Barnett and Monroe, Phil Jackson and Red Holzman. It is an account not only of their victories and struggles, but especially of their disparate backgrounds and personalities that meshed to form what might be the greatest team in NBA history, even if it was never composed of the greatest players in NBA history or even of that era. There is heart, self-sacrifice, unselfishness and determination, a microcosm (as Araton notes in a running subtext) of what America could have been like with racial harmony and mutual respect.

The team revolved around Willis Reed, and the narrative of Game 5 (1970 Finals – Reed injured, team trailing, but somehow miraculously defeat the Laker behemoths of Chamberlain, Baylor and West) makes as riveting and inspiring reading today as it was listening to that game. And Game 7 – Reed emerging through the runway and limping onto the court shortly before the game began, having taken shots of painkillers to ease the throbbing in his torn hip muscle – is the stuff of legends and clichés. DeBusschere turned, saw the Lakers mesmerized – frozen – by the sight of the injured Captain, and said to himself, “We got ‘em.” They did, in a rout.

I missed that game – May 8, 1970, a Friday night. Having seen the game in subsequent years on film, it remains enthralling entertainment and a slice of life. Walt Frazier, who had one of the greatest Game 7’s ever – 36 points, 19 assists – resented that Reed received the MVP award after having played barely five games in the series. But watching the game again with Araton – for his first time ever, Frazier said – he retracted and apologized for his earlier sentiments. It was Reed’s presence alone that intimidated the Lakers, and he deserved the MVP status.

The backgrounds of the major players were as diverse as America. Reed from the deep South, Frazier from urban Atlanta, DeBusschere from working class Detroit, and Bradley from upper middle class Republican bankers in Missouri – but all bonding through an understanding and appreciation of their diversity.

There was some underlying racial tension on the team – specifically the resentments of the talented Cazzie Russell who was the sixth man behind the slow-footed, cerebral Bill Bradley (my personal favorite player). Russell chafed in his role – even called Reed an “Uncle Tom” once for rebuking him, to which Reed essentially glared him into an apology and greater deference – but most basketball pundits saw Bradley’s genius, outside the numbers of the box score, in running the floor, passing, setting up teammates, disrupting the opposition, and creating offensive harmony.

It was a joy to behold – the team game, the movement without the ball, the shot going to the open man, the helping out on defense. It will surprise no one who watched those teams that Bradley was inducted into the NBA Hall of Fame, despite a career average of 12 points a game, with his season high topping out at 16 points a game. Indeed, seven other players from those teams are also Hall of Famers, and yet they succeeded in keeping their egos in check. Even the magical performer Earl “the Pearl” Monroe, a 1971 addition, learned to sublimate his skills for the good of the team –for example, insisting when he arrived on the team that he not take Dick Barnett’s starting position.

It was a different era. Most players did not earn great amounts of money from professional sports, held off-season jobs and actually needed the playoff money. Only Bradley had signed the big contract after college, his career delayed by studies in Oxford and then service in the Air Force – another relic of a bygone era. Willis Reed lived in Rego Park, a far cry from Derek Jeter’s penthouse in Trump Tower, and not far from where my own great aunt lived. It was a middle class existence, to which the average fan could easily relate.

Q & A: Ayin Hara (Part II)

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

Question: I know there is a dispute in the Gemara regarding ayin hara, the evil eye. Can you discuss the origin of it?

Ben Glassman

(Via E-Mail)

Answer: The Rambam (Hilchot Gezela v’Aveidah 13:11) and the Mechaber (Choshen Mishpat 267:18) write that one who finds a garment must periodically air it out, but not when there are guests around. This halacha is based on Bava Metzia 29b, where the gemara mentions two reasons for avoiding displaying a found garment before guests – either because of ayin hara or because of possible theft. Neither the Rambam nor the Mechaber mention the ayin hara concern. The Aruch Hashulchan (Choshen Mishpat, Hilchos Hashavat Aveidah 267:11) records the same halacha but adds that the finder may air out the garment before guests if he is sure they are people of integrity, in which case, there is no concern of theft or the evil eye. The Bach, to the Tur (C.M. ad loc.), mentions that the Rambam and the Mechaber only mention theft and not ayin hara because the concern of theft is easier for the general populace to understand. (The Rosh and the Rif mention both reasons.)

* * * * *

Let us delve into the biblical source for ayin hara (since there would be no halachic basis for being concerned about the evil eye if our sages did not find this concept grounded in scripture). We read in Parshat Lech Lecha that our Matriarch Sarah, childless after many years of marriage to Abraham, gives her maidservant Hagar to Abraham as a wife in order that she bear him children. Hagar immediately conceives and becomes so enamored of her pregnancy that she becomes disrespectful to her mistress. Sarah then confronts her husband, “Chamasi alecha; anochi natati shifchati becheikecha, vateirei ki harata va’ekal be’eineha. Yishpot Hashem beini u’veinecha! – The wrong done to me is due to you; I gave my maidservant to you, and now that she sees that she has conceived, I became lowered in her esteem. Let G-d judge between you and me!” (Genesis 16:5).

Sarah subsequently deals harshly with her maidservant, and Hagar flees. An angel of G-d finds her near a spring in the desert and asks her where she is headed. She tells him that she is fleeing from her mistress. The angel exhorts her to return to the servitude of her mistress, promising her a multitude of descendants from Abraham. He tells Hagar, “Hinach harah veyoladt ben, vekarat shemo Yishmael ki shama Hashem el onyech – You are [will be] with child and will give birth to a son, and you shall name him Ishmael because G-d heard your affliction” (ibid., 16:11).

The term “hinach harah” can be understood to indicate the future tense as well as the present. In his commentary to the two verses quoted above, Rashi understands the term to indicate the future tense. Based on the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 48:8), Rashi explains that Hagar had suffered a miscarriage and the angel was promising her another pregnancy. The Midrash deduces that Hagar miscarried due to the ayin hara that Sarah had cast upon her.

The power of the evil eye is also alluded to in connection with the famine in the land of Canaan in the days of our Patriarch Jacob. Jacob sent his sons to Egypt (which had a huge storehouse of food thanks to the astute planning of Joseph) to acquire wheat. Jacob said to his sons, “Why should you show yourselves?” (Genesis 42:1). The Talmud (Ta’anit 10b, see Rashi) points out that Jacob’s family had enough wheat to eat. Jacob, however, was cautioning them not to appear sated before the families of Esau and Ishmael because if they did, they would envy them. Thus, the whole mission to buy food in Egypt was primarily intended to ward off the evil eye.

Scripture also tells us, “Va’yavo’u bnei Yisrael lishbor betoch haba’im – And Jacob’s sons came to buy provisions among the arrivals” (ibid., 42:5). Rashi quotes a Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 91:6) that Jacob had also warned his sons not to all enter Egypt via the same gate since they were men of stature and pleasant features, and he wanted to stave off the evil eye of those who might look at them. Thus, he was clearly concerned about an ayin hara.

 

(To be continued)

 

Rabbi Yaakov Klass, rav of Congregation K’hal Bnei Matisyahu in Flatbush, Brooklyn, is the Torah editor of The Jewish Press. He can be contacted at yklass@jewishpress.com.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/ask-the-rabbi/q-a-ayin-hara-part-ii/2011/11/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: