What if I told you there’s an explanation of ayin ha’ra that is neither purely rationalistic nor mystical? True to form, Shadal offers just such an explanation.
Very interesting essay and analysis. It seems to me that the human eye is commonly called “the gateway to the soul,” an exposure of our true nature. Contrarily, the eye is also the means by which we objectify the world, placing ourselves beyond it as “the see-er” rather than “that which is seen.” The threat of the Evil Eye is connected in these parables with the counting of souls, i.e., with objectification, which is to say, domination. The way in which one looks upon another may be with an evil eye, and if one is vulnerable to that gaze, one becomes a reduced person. It’s essential to Judaism to sustain one’s personhood— one’s responsibility as a moral being. To treat others as less than human, or to allow oneself to be regarded as an instrument of any will other than The Lord’s, is to renege on God’s compact with the Jews. The fear of the evil eye is to fear falling into a state of dread— a Kierkegaardian dread that God will abandon you because you are an inadequate vessel, as you are either prone to being dominated (negatively influenced), or prone to dominating (objectifying others, which generates a terrible price.) This is something I think about!
Nice! The first half of what you wrote is essentially the explanation I used to give to my 10th graders when I taught this. I believe I theorized that counting each Jew by their contribution to the Mishkan is a way of negating that way of thinking, but I don't remember the details. The Kierkegaard point is interesting. Something to think about. Thanks for reading and commenting!
The beginning of Shadal's explanation sound like the Ralbag's and Abarbanel's explanation of King David's sin in counting the Jewish people-שהיה החטא בשדוד משיח אלקי יעקב ונעים זמירות ישראל שם בשר זרועו בבטחו על רוב עמו, ולא היה ראוי שישים בטחונו ברוב עם הדרת מלך כי אם ביי' לבדו שאין מעצור בידו להושיע ברב או במעט.
. Which assuming that you believe in Divine intervention, is quite rational. So I wonder why he has to throw in the part about the evil eye, and the Torah catering to that belief, since the previous explanation for ולא יהיה נגף בפקוד אותם holds up on its own.
Good question. I assume that Shadal was following Chazal's/Rashi's lead, from here and elsewhere, and he was going with that. Doesn't really answer your question - just pushes it back. Additionally, Shadal isn't always beholden to Chazal/Rashi.
Interesting that he gives the example of "It is this [wisdom] that decreed that the cold weather would be [unusually] harsh and early in the year 5573 " He didn't say that the downfall came directly from bad decision making resulting from arrogance (e.g. continuing to stage a campaign at the beginning of the Russian winter or other mishleic errors), rather he attributed the fall to external events. This still seems to be a supernatural explanation of ayin hara, viewing it as divine punishment, such that God made the external world operate differently as a punishment for human arrogance.
Wouldn't this significantly distinguish his approach from your theory of Mishleic causality?
While you both would claim "Hashem designed the world so that those who seek to benefit through foolish or wicked means will ultimately suffer the very outcome they hoped to avoid." For you divine providence describes a natural result of the sins, whereas for Shadal, providence produces a supernatural Deus ex Machina.
Challenge accepted. Shadal himself never excluded Divine intervention from his theory of "pride goeth before the fall." He said that "the events and their causes have all been arranged from the beginning of creation through the wisdom of the Supreme Regulator" -- a statement reminiscent of the one in Pirkei Avot about Balaam's donkey and other oddities having been part and parcel of the original Creation. One of those phenomena could well have been the bad weather of 1812. Another point to make is that it was indeed largely because of Napoleon's own hubris that his Russian invasion failed. He had bitten off more than he could chew, and he was already in retreat when the harsh winter struck his army. At that point, the snow was merely God's coup de grace. So I see no major gap between Shadal's approach and Matt's theory of "Mishleic causality."
Thank you, but I don't really understand your response. Shadal doesn’t only include divine intervention as part of his theory, it is his central example. Taking the case of Napolean, why does Shadal choose to teach it through the “coup de grace” of divine intervention in winter, and not mention the earlier natural consequences which, as you mentioned, were also present? Is this a difference in ones theory of pride coming before a fall, (between a view where pride directly leads to a fall, and one where it describes a consequent divine act of intervention (perhaps built into the creation like other “oddities”) but not naturally causal), or is this a pedagogical difference as to which aspect of Napoleon’s fall would be more useful to the students (either due to different students, or different pedagogical goals)?
It sounded to me like Shadal is saying that these principles of divine punishment and providence do not work through nature but rather are a different system law built in at the creation, whereas my understanding of Rabbi Schneeweiss’s theory of "Mishleic causality." would view it as a result of the normal causal system of nature (without outruling the presence of divine providential intervention in certain cases).
(Also as an aside, does Shadal have an explanation of that mishna in avot tucked into his commentary somewhere? Since, as you mentioned, it focuses on “oddities” I am surprised that it would function as an explanation of a general principle like pride coming before a fall. )
To ask the question another way. This paragraph of Shadal confuses me:
“The world does not behave according to the laws of physical nature alone; rather, there are other laws that were framed by the Supreme Intelligence at the beginning of creation, according to which all events are caused, bringing upon nations and individuals alike both good and evil occurrences that attest to Providence. The [modern] philosophizer looks upon them and says that they are happenstance, while the common folk look upon them and say that they are miraculous. In fact, they are natural events that result inevitably from natural causes, but the events and their causes have all been arranged from the beginning of creation through the wisdom of the Supreme Regulator, blessed be His name. “
He starts out saying that they are not according to physical nature and these are "other laws", and then he says that they result inevitably from natural causes, which sounds contradictory. Maybe he is saying something like the initial conditions of the world were set up so that these specific outcomes would occur so the ingredients which went into designing the laws of nature included specific outcomes, but from that point on it is natural playing out of that design? (As an aside, is that also his theory of how miracles work?) In other words, ''pride comes before a fall" is its own law which pre-exists the creation of the natural world, (as opposed to being an emergent property of complex things within the natural world).
If that is correct, what pushed him in this direction rather than saying that it is according to physical nature, where pride has natural consequence?
Also what is the status of these "other laws"? If "pride comes before a fall" is a separate law which determined how God created the laws of nature, is that an earlier creation? Does it preexist any creation? something else?
Good stuff 👍. I'd also point out that whereas in the standard two approaches it is others that are able to harm the object of the ayin hara for Shadal it is entirely internally generated with the enemy fully within. I think it lends itself to less paranoia and more wholesome self improvement.
There is also an opinion that the pride comes before the fall is not necessarily a logical or rational statement at all! There are many proud people
Who don’t fall and there are many humble or insecure people that do fall!
However, if we look at serving HaShem requiring a certain degree of pride as acceptable and the fall as the arrogance resulting from serving HaShem for ulterior motives, then we can also say the fall can be prevented by nullifying one’s ego and giving credit for the positive outcome to God.
While I agree that there are many proud people who don't fall and many humble or insecure people that do fall, I completely disagree with your reasoning that "[therefore,] pride comes before the fall is not necessarily a logical or rational statement at all."
Mishlei, like ALL proverbs, speaks in generalities. The commentators frequently mention that while nearly every statement in Mishlei is formulated in an unqualified manner, some are intended to convey truths which hold in the majority of cases, others work out with equal probability, and some only play out as formulated in rare cases.
This is how all such teachings, in every society, are formulated. "The early bird gets the worm" is intended to be a GENERAL truth. Does the fact that there are "early birds" who DON'T "get the worm" render the proverb illogical or irrational? Not at all! If I advise you not to swim with sharks or you'll get bitten, would you be "disproving" my statement if you cited examples where people swim with sharks and DON'T get bitten? Not at all! My advice is still good advice because it expresses a general truth, and in the case of sharks, the stakes are high enough to treat this as an ironclad law, even if it doesn't play out that way all the time.
The same is true here. "Pride goeth before the fall" expresses an absolute truth: to the extent that a person's view of their own greatness and/or importance in reality is exaggerated, they will be setting themselves up for failure and disappointment. In the long run, this is INEVITABLE, even if it doesn't play out in every particular case.
Drive by analysis - isn't his approach Psychological?
By this I mean we have 2 ways of thinking/approaching the world, in psychoanalytic terms Primary thought processes and Secondary thought processes. The primary being what we call psychological, the second being rational thought.
While we might call a psychological explanation "rational" it is really tapping into a deeper part of our mind that works by association and representation rather than the rational cause and effect. Even though we see the cause emanating from the primary thought processes and effects being how we view or think of certain events/principals that seem to not be 'real' and so may think of it as a rational approach, it still relies on the primary thought connections and ways of connecting things and ideas. These do have reality, and Shadal's point of bringing these ways of thinking from merely emotional reactions to reality into the framework of Hashem's system of Schar V'Onesh is potent in that it aligns all levels of human experience to Hashem's reality.
Very interesting essay and analysis. It seems to me that the human eye is commonly called “the gateway to the soul,” an exposure of our true nature. Contrarily, the eye is also the means by which we objectify the world, placing ourselves beyond it as “the see-er” rather than “that which is seen.” The threat of the Evil Eye is connected in these parables with the counting of souls, i.e., with objectification, which is to say, domination. The way in which one looks upon another may be with an evil eye, and if one is vulnerable to that gaze, one becomes a reduced person. It’s essential to Judaism to sustain one’s personhood— one’s responsibility as a moral being. To treat others as less than human, or to allow oneself to be regarded as an instrument of any will other than The Lord’s, is to renege on God’s compact with the Jews. The fear of the evil eye is to fear falling into a state of dread— a Kierkegaardian dread that God will abandon you because you are an inadequate vessel, as you are either prone to being dominated (negatively influenced), or prone to dominating (objectifying others, which generates a terrible price.) This is something I think about!
Nice! The first half of what you wrote is essentially the explanation I used to give to my 10th graders when I taught this. I believe I theorized that counting each Jew by their contribution to the Mishkan is a way of negating that way of thinking, but I don't remember the details. The Kierkegaard point is interesting. Something to think about. Thanks for reading and commenting!
The beginning of Shadal's explanation sound like the Ralbag's and Abarbanel's explanation of King David's sin in counting the Jewish people-שהיה החטא בשדוד משיח אלקי יעקב ונעים זמירות ישראל שם בשר זרועו בבטחו על רוב עמו, ולא היה ראוי שישים בטחונו ברוב עם הדרת מלך כי אם ביי' לבדו שאין מעצור בידו להושיע ברב או במעט.
. Which assuming that you believe in Divine intervention, is quite rational. So I wonder why he has to throw in the part about the evil eye, and the Torah catering to that belief, since the previous explanation for ולא יהיה נגף בפקוד אותם holds up on its own.
Good question. I assume that Shadal was following Chazal's/Rashi's lead, from here and elsewhere, and he was going with that. Doesn't really answer your question - just pushes it back. Additionally, Shadal isn't always beholden to Chazal/Rashi.
Interesting that he gives the example of "It is this [wisdom] that decreed that the cold weather would be [unusually] harsh and early in the year 5573 " He didn't say that the downfall came directly from bad decision making resulting from arrogance (e.g. continuing to stage a campaign at the beginning of the Russian winter or other mishleic errors), rather he attributed the fall to external events. This still seems to be a supernatural explanation of ayin hara, viewing it as divine punishment, such that God made the external world operate differently as a punishment for human arrogance.
Wouldn't this significantly distinguish his approach from your theory of Mishleic causality?
While you both would claim "Hashem designed the world so that those who seek to benefit through foolish or wicked means will ultimately suffer the very outcome they hoped to avoid." For you divine providence describes a natural result of the sins, whereas for Shadal, providence produces a supernatural Deus ex Machina.
Good question. I'm going to think about it, but also ask Dan Klein to weigh in.
Challenge accepted. Shadal himself never excluded Divine intervention from his theory of "pride goeth before the fall." He said that "the events and their causes have all been arranged from the beginning of creation through the wisdom of the Supreme Regulator" -- a statement reminiscent of the one in Pirkei Avot about Balaam's donkey and other oddities having been part and parcel of the original Creation. One of those phenomena could well have been the bad weather of 1812. Another point to make is that it was indeed largely because of Napoleon's own hubris that his Russian invasion failed. He had bitten off more than he could chew, and he was already in retreat when the harsh winter struck his army. At that point, the snow was merely God's coup de grace. So I see no major gap between Shadal's approach and Matt's theory of "Mishleic causality."
Thank you, but I don't really understand your response. Shadal doesn’t only include divine intervention as part of his theory, it is his central example. Taking the case of Napolean, why does Shadal choose to teach it through the “coup de grace” of divine intervention in winter, and not mention the earlier natural consequences which, as you mentioned, were also present? Is this a difference in ones theory of pride coming before a fall, (between a view where pride directly leads to a fall, and one where it describes a consequent divine act of intervention (perhaps built into the creation like other “oddities”) but not naturally causal), or is this a pedagogical difference as to which aspect of Napoleon’s fall would be more useful to the students (either due to different students, or different pedagogical goals)?
It sounded to me like Shadal is saying that these principles of divine punishment and providence do not work through nature but rather are a different system law built in at the creation, whereas my understanding of Rabbi Schneeweiss’s theory of "Mishleic causality." would view it as a result of the normal causal system of nature (without outruling the presence of divine providential intervention in certain cases).
(Also as an aside, does Shadal have an explanation of that mishna in avot tucked into his commentary somewhere? Since, as you mentioned, it focuses on “oddities” I am surprised that it would function as an explanation of a general principle like pride coming before a fall. )
To ask the question another way. This paragraph of Shadal confuses me:
“The world does not behave according to the laws of physical nature alone; rather, there are other laws that were framed by the Supreme Intelligence at the beginning of creation, according to which all events are caused, bringing upon nations and individuals alike both good and evil occurrences that attest to Providence. The [modern] philosophizer looks upon them and says that they are happenstance, while the common folk look upon them and say that they are miraculous. In fact, they are natural events that result inevitably from natural causes, but the events and their causes have all been arranged from the beginning of creation through the wisdom of the Supreme Regulator, blessed be His name. “
He starts out saying that they are not according to physical nature and these are "other laws", and then he says that they result inevitably from natural causes, which sounds contradictory. Maybe he is saying something like the initial conditions of the world were set up so that these specific outcomes would occur so the ingredients which went into designing the laws of nature included specific outcomes, but from that point on it is natural playing out of that design? (As an aside, is that also his theory of how miracles work?) In other words, ''pride comes before a fall" is its own law which pre-exists the creation of the natural world, (as opposed to being an emergent property of complex things within the natural world).
If that is correct, what pushed him in this direction rather than saying that it is according to physical nature, where pride has natural consequence?
Also what is the status of these "other laws"? If "pride comes before a fall" is a separate law which determined how God created the laws of nature, is that an earlier creation? Does it preexist any creation? something else?
Good stuff 👍. I'd also point out that whereas in the standard two approaches it is others that are able to harm the object of the ayin hara for Shadal it is entirely internally generated with the enemy fully within. I think it lends itself to less paranoia and more wholesome self improvement.
Excellent point!
There is also an opinion that the pride comes before the fall is not necessarily a logical or rational statement at all! There are many proud people
Who don’t fall and there are many humble or insecure people that do fall!
However, if we look at serving HaShem requiring a certain degree of pride as acceptable and the fall as the arrogance resulting from serving HaShem for ulterior motives, then we can also say the fall can be prevented by nullifying one’s ego and giving credit for the positive outcome to God.
While I agree that there are many proud people who don't fall and many humble or insecure people that do fall, I completely disagree with your reasoning that "[therefore,] pride comes before the fall is not necessarily a logical or rational statement at all."
Mishlei, like ALL proverbs, speaks in generalities. The commentators frequently mention that while nearly every statement in Mishlei is formulated in an unqualified manner, some are intended to convey truths which hold in the majority of cases, others work out with equal probability, and some only play out as formulated in rare cases.
This is how all such teachings, in every society, are formulated. "The early bird gets the worm" is intended to be a GENERAL truth. Does the fact that there are "early birds" who DON'T "get the worm" render the proverb illogical or irrational? Not at all! If I advise you not to swim with sharks or you'll get bitten, would you be "disproving" my statement if you cited examples where people swim with sharks and DON'T get bitten? Not at all! My advice is still good advice because it expresses a general truth, and in the case of sharks, the stakes are high enough to treat this as an ironclad law, even if it doesn't play out that way all the time.
The same is true here. "Pride goeth before the fall" expresses an absolute truth: to the extent that a person's view of their own greatness and/or importance in reality is exaggerated, they will be setting themselves up for failure and disappointment. In the long run, this is INEVITABLE, even if it doesn't play out in every particular case.
That’s fair. I wrote that to show that the fall needs a little more definition. The fall itself can be subtle such as pride turning to arrogance …
Let’s hope that Putin and other dictators can find their proportional
End soon!
Drive by analysis - isn't his approach Psychological?
By this I mean we have 2 ways of thinking/approaching the world, in psychoanalytic terms Primary thought processes and Secondary thought processes. The primary being what we call psychological, the second being rational thought.
While we might call a psychological explanation "rational" it is really tapping into a deeper part of our mind that works by association and representation rather than the rational cause and effect. Even though we see the cause emanating from the primary thought processes and effects being how we view or think of certain events/principals that seem to not be 'real' and so may think of it as a rational approach, it still relies on the primary thought connections and ways of connecting things and ideas. These do have reality, and Shadal's point of bringing these ways of thinking from merely emotional reactions to reality into the framework of Hashem's system of Schar V'Onesh is potent in that it aligns all levels of human experience to Hashem's reality.