Many eminent authorities maintain that the evil eye can apply even to matters involving a mitzvah[1], such as a Torah scholar delivering a public derashah[2]. (However, if he wears tzitzit, he is saved from the 
evil eye[3]; therefore, in earlier times darshanim would deliver their derashot while wearing a tallit gadol[4].) This is especially so when it is done in a manner that causes people to marvel[5]. Regarding the reason, according to this view, why the evil eye applies even to a mitzvah and we do not say, “One who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing[6],” Maharar Shmuel Laniado zt”l[7] wrote that this is because the evil eye is considered commonplace and a definite danger; see there.
However, some write that when the matter involves a mitzvah—such as publicly teaching words of Torah or bringing a poor person into one’s home—one need not be concerned about the evil eye, for we say, “One who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing,” and the mitzvah protects the person from harm[8]. [Unless, for example, he is an unusually young darshan[9].]
It appears that all agree that the evil eye may apply even where one is engaged in a mitzvah, when it was not necessary to perform the mitzvah specifically in that manner, since there are ways to fulfill it differently. Thus, we find in the Shulchan Aruch (cited above) that two brothers should not be called to the Torah one after the other because of the evil eye—for they could be called to the Torah, just not consecutively; see also the note[10]. We likewise cited the Rema’s ruling not to conduct chupot for two grooms at the same time[11], and the ruling of the Acharonim not to perform a brit milah for two infants at the same time[12], and so forth. We similarly find in the Torah that Israel was commanded to be counted through half-shekels so that the evil eye would not have power over them, as Rashi writes at the beginning of Parashat Ki Tisa. Although counting them was a mitzvah[13], since there was a way to count them indirectly, by giving half-shekels, they were obligated to do so in order to prevent the evil eye. This is precisely what Chazal emphasize in Yoma[14]: “It is forbidden to count Israel even for the purpose of a mitzvah”—because of the evil eye, as the Maharsha explains there.
This differs from a scholar’s derashah and the like. As noted, the Acharonim disagree about this, for there is no way to perform the mitzvah completely—namely, to present wonderful words of Torah and inspire the public with the sweetness of Torah—other than by delivering the derashah before everyone in its full splendor. Since it cannot be done otherwise, some Acharonim say that “one who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing.” The same applies to inviting a poor person into one’s home, for there is no reasonable way to fulfill the mitzvah unless the poor person enters the home, where he will unavoidably see its possessions[15], and similarly in all such cases. [After writing this, I saw that our friend, HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Eliyahu Bar Shalom shlit”a, likewise made this distinction, even regarding the view of the aforementioned Pele Yoetz[16].]
I have now seen a brief handwritten responsum of Maran Rabbeinu Ovadia Yosef ztzk”l[17], in which he distinguishes differently: where a matter is an obligation upon the individual, we say, “One who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing.” The ruling of Maran the Shulchan Aruch that two brothers should not be called to the Torah consecutively is because Torah reading is not an individual obligation, but a communal obligation. On this basis, he answers why two Kohanim who are brothers may ascend to duchan for Birkat Kohanim without concern for the evil eye: the obligation of Birkat Kohanim rests upon every Kohen. See there.
See also his work Anaf Etz Avot[18], where he concludes:
“Nevertheless, it appears that one whom HaKadosh Baruch Hu has endowed with an instructive tongue, and who possesses the power to influence and bring merit to the masses through great wisdom and knowledge, should not refrain from doing so out of concern for the evil eye, for one who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing. Certainly, even concerning the evil eye, we say: one who is not particular is not treated particularly. And so on. Yet it is good that he perform the segulah against the evil eye mentioned in the Gemara in Berachot, and so on.” These are his words; see there.
In Sefer HaZechirah Seminar[19] it is written: “A segulah that the evil eye should not have power when one teaches publicly: his heart should derive no pleasure from it at all, and he should say, ‘For the sake of the unification of the Holy One, blessed be He,’ and so on; through this he will be saved from stumbling.” These are his words. This implies that even according to those who hold that the evil eye may affect a darshan, it is because his heart becomes proud through it and he does not teach for the sake of Heaven. The evil eye thus affects the deficiency in the darshan, but has no power over the mitzvah itself. Examine this carefully.
However, all this requires consideration in light of what Chazal state regarding the first Luchot, which were broken because of the evil eye[20]. From this, the Gaon, author of the Ben Ish Chai[21], and other Acharonim inferred that the evil eye applies even to sacred matters. Yet it may be said that the Luchot themselves were not the performance of a mitzvah, but an object of mitzvah intended to convey to Bnei Yisrael the message that they must fulfill the Aseret HaDibrot. The mitzvah itself is the fulfillment of the Aseret HaDibrot and does not depend on the Luchot themselves. Moreover, the Luchot are different, for the Midrash explains that the evil eye affected them because they were given with enormous publicity[22], amid thunder and lightning before the entire world. This is unlike a mitzvah such as a fine derashah, however impressive it may be, which does not have such public exposure. Furthermore, in the case of the Luchot there was also the sin of the Golden Calf, which gave the evil eye power over something so sacred; ordinarily, evil has no power over holiness[23]. See also below in the words of the Chida. Additionally, Sefer Shem MiShmuel[24] writes that the evil eye had no power over the Luchot so long as the holy letters were upon them; only after the letters flew away did the evil eye gain power over the stones and cause them to break. See there.
Similarly, this can explain Chazal’s statement that Yerushalayim was destroyed only because of the evil eye[25]. Yerushalayim itself is not a mitzvah; it is also different because it is the joy of the entire earth, all Israel would ascend there, and all nations fixed their eyes upon it. Moreover, there were exceedingly grave sins: in the First Beit HaMikdash, forbidden relations, bloodshed, and avodah zarah; and in the Second Beit HaMikdash, baseless hatred, which is equivalent to the three grave sins[26]. See also HaRav Chaim Palagi zt”l in his Nefesh Chaim[27]. After writing, based on the holy Zohar[28], that “the evil eye has no power in a holy place or over something possessing holiness”[29], he raises the above question concerning the Luchot, which were broken because of the evil eye despite there being nothing more sacred. He answers that the Zohar itself explains that holiness upon holiness is needed; while the Luchot possessed holiness, Israel’s sin caused them not to possess holiness as they should. These are his words. Yet he subsequently qualifies this, writing that the evil eye can indeed apply even to a mitzvah and to something sacred; see there.
Nevertheless, we also find in Chazal, in Avot DeRabbi Natan, Version A, chapter 16: “Another explanation: What is the evil eye? A person should not begrudge his fellow’s Torah learning. There was an incident with a person who begrudged his fellow’s learning; his life was shortened, and he died and departed.” The plain implication of this statement seemingly concerns even a case where there was nothing especially exceptional about that fellow’s learning, and this requires study. [Incidentally, this is unrelated to “the envy of scholars increases wisdom,” for scholarly envy means the desire to learn and perform mitzvot like one’s fellow, not begrudging what one’s fellow has learned[30].]
In any event, Heaven forbid that one should refrain from a mitzvah because of concern for the evil eye. Rather, he should perform the mitzvah with mesirut nefesh, pray to HaKadosh Baruch Hu that no mishap result, and employ several segulot, which we will mention below, to be saved from the evil eye—for example, he should take with him the herb rue[31], and the like.
See also Maharar Nissim Harari zt”l, in his introduction to Seder Tikkun Chatzot (Jerusalem, 5657), folios 57a–b, who discusses at length and in depth the spiritual grip of the evil eye of the kelipot upon
[1] This is the conclusion of the Chida in his Nefesh Chaim, ma’arechet ayin, no. 28: “Even in avodat Hashem and in the performance of mitzvot that a person does, he should conceal his affairs,” because of the evil eye; see there. This is apart from the concern of arrogance. His primary proof is from the implication of the holy Zohar, Parashat Noach 64b, and the words of Rabbeinu Bachya on Parashat Chayei Sarah. He also cites HaRav Shalmei Tzibbur in Chelvei HaShalem, laws of the sanctity of a synagogue, no. 43, folio 11d; HaRav Yad Yosef, folio 182b; and Dikdukei Chaverim of Maharar A. Miranda, folio 21a. See also the Chida’s Ateret HaChaim no. 30, for a prayer before a derashah that includes a request that the evil eye not have power; his Refuah VeChaim, chapter 12; and Yimtza Chaim no. 23, for a student’s prayer. Likewise, the prayer formulated by the Chida for a darshan, printed in the introduction to Chadrei Vaten, p. 57, includes this request in both manuscripts. See Keter Shem Tov, Gagin, p. 304.
[2] So wrote the saintly Kohen, Maharar Eliyahu HaKohen of Izmir zt”l, author of Shevet Mussar, in Semuchim La’ad, end of Parashat Vayechi, s.v. Naftali, in the name of Sefer Azharot Kodesh no. 51. See also below in the name of the Chida, the Gaon author of Ben Ish Chai, and others.
Something similar is seemingly found in Sefer Chassidim no. 612, which writes that an author of a sefer should fast and pray so that he not be harmed. The straightforward understanding seemingly is because of the evil eye, though this may be rejected; in any event, this is how it was understood in Shut Shema Avraham Palagi, vol. II, “Chatimat HaSefer,” folio 178c, s.v. Ume’achar. Likewise, Shut Maharshag, vol. I, Yoreh De’ah no. 101, s.v. U’vadavar, cites his father zt”l that there is room to be concerned for the evil eye when publishing a sefer. See also Shut Birkat Yehudah, vol. VII, miscellaneous matters, gate 4, which cites HaRav Ne’eman shlit”a that HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Levi zt”l passed away young because he published all volumes of Birkat Hashem at once rather than one at a time, and the evil eye therefore affected him; see there.
[3] The Chida, in Devash Lefi, ma’arechet tzadi, letter 27, citing Yalkut Reuveni, folio 139b, in the name of the Arizal.
[4] Ginzei Chaim Palagi, ma’arechet dalet, letter 55; and Shut Lev Chaim, vol. III, no. 99, s.v. U’al pi. See there. This is likewise written in Chayei Yitzchak HaKohen no. 2, Shut Yismach Levanu Hirari, Even HaEzer no. 1, and others.
[5] See Shut Lev Chaim cited above, in the responsum of the author’s son, Maharar Yosef Palagi zt”l. He relates an incident in Izmir involving a shaliach tzibbur—although this is not mentioned in the responsum itself, this chazzan was his brother-in-law, Rabbi Moshe, son-in-law of Maharar Chaim Palagi zt”l—who on Rosh Hashanah led both Shacharit and Mussaf in a loud and powerful voice audible from afar and exceptionally pleasant. He also read from the Torah and sounded all the shofar blasts himself. People marveled at the great strength he displayed; that very day he became ill, and shortly afterward he passed away, rachmana litzlan. Shut Lev Chaim attributes this to the evil eye of the public; see there. Maran Maharar Ovadia Yosef zt”l likewise related this in a Motzaei Shabbat lecture on Parashat Chayei Sarah, 5761, printed in Peninei Yosef, vol. II, p. 26.
[6] Kohelet 8:5.
[7] Kli Yakar on II Shmuel chapter 24, folio 358c; in the Machon HaKetav edition, p. 618. Shut Ma’amar Mordechai, by HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l, vol. III, no. 16, letter 3, independently arrived at the same conclusion.
[8] Pele Yoetz, entry Ayin HaRa, writes: “One should not refrain from performing a mitzvah due to concern for the evil eye, such as bringing a poor person into his home or teaching publicly to impart knowledge to the people, for one who guards a mitzvah shall know no evil thing, and a mitzvah protects; it is a shield and buckler.” These are his words. HaRav Zechar David Modena, ma’amar I, chapter 45, folio 114b, reaches the same conclusion. Similarly, HaRav Yosef Chaim zt”l writes in Aderet Eliyahu, Parashat Balak, that HaKadosh Baruch Hu protects Torah scholars even though all their Torah is public; see there, though a distinction may be drawn. Shut Afrakasta DeAnya, Yoreh De’ah no. 146, also supports this based on the questioner’s words, explaining that the evil eye is not considered a definite danger; on the contrary, it is a weak claim. Shut Be’er Eliyahu Katz, Yoreh De’ah no. 44, likewise writes that “one who guards a mitzvah” applies even concerning the evil eye. HaRav Emunat Tzvi, Parashat Vayechi, writes this as the reason we publicize one who performs a mitzvah. This is also the view of HaRav Yitzchak Zilberstein shlit”a, in responsum 36 printed in the responsa section of Avnei Zikaron, Hilchot Kibbud Av Va’Em no. 41, and in Chashukei Chemed on Nedarim p. 576 and Moed Katan p. 287 concerning Torah study. However, in Chashukei Chemed on Bava Metzia p. 490 and Chagigah p. 302, he somewhat qualifies this and requires the additional use of segulot against the evil eye. HaRav Yosef Chaim Ohev Tzion shlit”a, one of the precious scholars of our beit midrash, likewise wrote this in responsum 36 printed in Kovetz HaMaor, issue 441, p. 67, in the name of the newsletter Umka DeKivsa citing HaRav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l: “Regarding a Torah matter, there is nothing to fear.” It is possible to distinguish between a Torah matter and a mitzvah matter; see further. In any event, contradictory reports in HaRav Kanievsky’s name even concerning Torah study are cited there. See also Kol Mishalotecha, Parashat Miketz, concerning a groom who wishes to make a siyum on the entire Shas during Sheva Berachot: if he is concerned about the evil eye, he has grounds for concern.
Indeed, this also appears to be the view of Rabbeinu Yitzchak Abarbanel z”l in his Torah commentary, beginning of Parashat Ki Tisa; see the extensive analysis of his wording in Ayin HaRa BeEin HaYahadut, pp. 147–148.
See also Maharar Chaim Palagi zt”l in Nefesh Chaim, ma’arechet ayin, no. 28, who writes: “When the matter is according to Hashem’s will, the evil eye has no power over it.” He cites Mahari”a on Parashat Ki Tisa and Parashat Bamidbar, and HaRav Tzemach David on Parashat Shemot and Parashat Ki Tisa; see there.
Regarding a derashah, there is an additional reason to say that the evil eye has no power, for Sanhedrin 92a states that one who teaches Torah to others merits Yosef’s blessings. Ben Yehoyada explains there that Yosef’s blessings refer to protection from the evil eye. This is in addition to the general protection from the evil eye afforded by Torah study, as Maharar Yosef Alfiah zt”l emphasizes in his Shi’ach Yitzchak, essay on Ayin HaRa.
[9] HaGaon Maharar Eliezer Papo zt”l himself, who writes in Pele Yoetz cited above that a darshan need not fear the evil eye because a mitzvah protects, writes in Orot Elim on Bava Metzia no. 168 that it is not good to appoint an exceptionally young and wise child to teach before a large congregation, since this raises concern for the evil eye, as it is extraordinary in the public’s eyes and not the normal order of the world. Accordingly, this explains the Gemara in Berachot regarding Chanah’s prayer that Shmuel should not be excessively wise, where the glosses of Ya’avetz explain: “in his childhood.” The concern is specifically for a precociously wise child, as noted by HaRav Damesek Eliezer Mualem on Pele Yoetz, in Tuvcha Yabiu, Parashat Ki Tisa, in the above responsum of HaRav Yosef Chaim Ohev Tzion, and in Shut Birkat Yehudah, vol. VII, miscellaneous matters, gate 4; see there.
[10] Shut Afrakasta DeAnya, Yoreh De’ah no. 146, cites a similar distinction from the questioner: those brothers could choose not to receive an aliyah at all, since it is not an obligatory mitzvah. Similarly, Sdei Chemed, section Lashon Chachamim no. 82, cites Beit Yehudah that whenever a person can save himself from danger, he should not rely on “one who guards a mitzvah,” as this would be relying upon a miracle. Only regarding an obligatory mitzvah can one say “one who guards a mitzvah,” and so forth. Shut Beit Matityahu, vol. IV, no. 1, writes similarly, since Torah reading is a communal rather than individual obligation. The author there rejects this, since the Shulchan Aruch speaks without qualification, even where the two brothers were obligated to receive aliyot because of a yahrzeit. Yet it may be said that the Shulchan Aruch discusses the common case. However, the questioner’s distinction does not resolve the other proofs cited above, which involve obligatory mitzvot, such as brit milah, which is fully obligatory. Therefore, it is preferable to distinguish as we have written: the case differs where the mitzvah can be fulfilled in a manner that will not arouse the evil eye. [I have now seen one of the foremost scholars of our beit midrash, the author of Birkat Avraham, our master and teacher HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Shmuel Cohen shlit”a, who in Ben Tzitzit HaKeset p. 477 cites the pleasant words of the questioner in Afrakasta DeAnya and understands that his intent was the distinction we have made: where the mitzvah can be fulfilled differently. He cites a similar distinction, on another subject, from Zecher Asah no. 179 in the name of Petach HaDevir. However, in my humble view, the distinction in Afrakasta DeAnya is broader: every mitzvah that is not obligatory is not included in “one who guards a mitzvah,” and so forth.]
[11] Alternatively, this may be rejected as Ot Brit, folio 22a, writes: a chupah is not the mitzvah itself but preparation for the mitzvah; see there.
[12] HaGaon Maharar David Modena zt”l, in Zecher David, ma’amar I, chapter 45, folio 114b, offers another distinction: before circumcision, an infant still has an orlah, and therefore the evil eye can affect him even in a mitzvah matter. Two grooms are a concern because it is a day of forgiveness for their sins, and thus their judgment is examined in Heaven. Ordinarily, however, one need not fear the evil eye in the context of a mitzvah, because “one who guards a mitzvah,” and so forth. See there. Other explanations have also been given, such as that regarding infants, concern for the evil eye arises when their names are called, after the mitzvah has already passed, and the like.
[13] Ramban, beginning of Parashat Ki Tisa, writes that Moshe Rabbeinu was commanded to count Israel at that time. Rabbeinu Bachya likewise writes this on Shemot 30:12.
[14] Yoma 22b.
[15] What we find in Bava Metzia 84b, according to Rashi there, that a person may not spread out a found article in his home when guests arrive because a guest may harm it through the evil eye, is different. It explicitly concerns a found article that must be aired from time to time, which one would not leave spread out constantly. Thus, it can be spread out at another time when there are no guests. Moreover, not every guest involves the mitzvah of hachnasat orchim, and this is not the place to elaborate.
[16] Kovetz Torat Yosef, issue 7, Tammuz 5774, no. 81.
[17] Printed in Kovetz Yated HaMeir, Cheshvan 5773, issue 541; Kovetz Mishnat Yosef, Tammuz 5775, no. 97; and mentioned in Omer Yabia Yarchi no. 30.
[18] Chapter 2, Mishnah 11.
[19] Under “Matters of This World.”
[20] Midrash Tanchuma, Buber edition, Parashat Miketz no. 8; in the Warsaw edition, Parashat Ki Tisa no. 31: “Nothing is as difficult as the evil eye. So too you find regarding the first Luchot: because they were given with grandeur, they were broken, as it is stated, ‘And all the people saw the sounds’ (Shemot 20:15). But when the second Luchot were given, no one saw them except Moshe, as it is stated, ‘And no man shall ascend with you’ (Shemot 34:3).” Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashat Naso, chapter 12, likewise mentions this and the subsequent concern for the Mishkan: “Why does it say, ‘He made for himself an apiryon’? Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: This may be compared to a king who betrothed his daughter and made a great betrothal celebration for her, and the evil eye affected her. When the king came to marry off his daughter, what did he do? He gave her an amulet and said to her: Let this amulet be upon you so that the evil eye will no longer have power over you. So too, when HaKadosh Baruch Hu came to give the Torah to Israel, He made a great public display, as it is written, ‘And all the people saw the sounds.’ They were all holy, as it is written, ‘Go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow,’ yet the evil eye affected them and the Luchot were broken, as it is stated, ‘And he broke them beneath the mountain.’ Therefore, when they came and made the Mishkan, HaKadosh Baruch Hu first gave them the blessings so that the evil eye would not have power over them. Therefore, it first states, ‘May Hashem bless you and protect you’—from the evil eye—and afterward, ‘And it came to pass on the day that Moshe finished,’ and so on.”
[21] Ben Yehoyada on Pesachim 68b.
[22] Tanchuma, Warsaw edition cited above: “The first Luchot, because they were given publicly, the evil eye had power over them and they were broken.” HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Aharon Shalev shlit”a, a graduate of our beit midrash, writes in Esh Tamid on Masechet Tamid 28a that this is the reason specifically the Luchot were affected by the evil eye, unlike other matters. His words are cited in Shut Birkat Yehudah, vol. VII, miscellaneous matters, gate 4, note 3.
[23] HaGaon, Rabbi of Tiveria, a scion of a holy family, HaRav HaGaon Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Baruch Bohbot zt”l, elaborates in Yemin Moshe p. 361 in establishing this principle: initially, the evil eye has no power over sacred matters, mitzvot, tzaddikim, and the like. Where Chazal say that the evil eye affected the Luchot, holy Yerushalayim, and similar matters, it is because sin caused this, and they thereby fell under the power of the evil eye; see there.
[24] Parashat Ekev, 5675.
[25] Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Miketz cited above: “Even Yerushalayim was destroyed only because of the evil eye, as it is stated, ‘Is this the city of which they said: Perfect in beauty, the joy of all the earth?’ (Eichah 2:15), and it says, ‘My eye has affected my soul because of all the daughters of my city’ (Eichah 3:51).”
[26] Yoma 9b.
[27] Ma’arechet ayin, no. 28.
[28] Parashat Vayakhel 225b.
[29] This is likewise written in Derash Shmuel, Seder Terumah; see there.
[30] Divrei Binah, Parashat Matot, s.v. Unvach; Siftei Chaim, HaRav Friedlander, on the Torah, Parashat Chayei Sarah p. 222; HaRav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l in Orchot Yosher, entry Kinah; and HaRav Aharon Leib Steinman zt”l, cited in Binat HaMiddot p. 226, among others. However, the Rishon LeTzion, HaRav Avraham Bakshi Doron zt”l, in Binyan Av, Parashat Vayeshev, offers an additional explanation: when a person attains wisdom through toil and effort, the evil eye cannot have power over it, and concerning this it is said, “the envy of scholars increases wisdom.” But where a person reaches attainments and knowledge due to exceptional natural talents, the evil eye may indeed apply; see there. Several other explanations have been offered, and this is not the place to elaborate.
[31] This was the practice of Rabbeinu, the author of Ben Ish Chai zt”l, during derashot: he would hold rue in his hand. Maran Rabbeinu Ovadia Yosef would likewise place the herb rue in his pocket when serving as sandak or attending an event, as explained in the aforementioned entry, “Ayin HaRa.”
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
