Aspects Of Tefillin

Some ideas I said pinch hitting for a Chumash shiur. 

Where tefillin worn in the Midbar?  The first two parshios of tefillin were given in this week's parsha so presumably tefillin were worn but what about the missing two parshios which where only given later?  Some are of the opinion that although the parshios are given here, tefillin was not actually worn in the Midbar.  Others say that they worn tefillin with two parshios.  The question is according to that approach, did the head tefillin have all 4 compartments and two were left empty, or where there only two compartments? 

Rashi in Bo (13:16) says וְעַל שֵׁם שֶׁהֵם אַרְבָעָה בָתִּים קְרוּיִין טטפת – "טט" בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, "פת" בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.  However, Rashi in Vaeshachan (6:8) says  וְהָיוּ לְטֹֽטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶֽיךָ.  אֵלּוּ תְּפִלִּין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ, וְעַל שֵׁם מִנְיַן פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתֵיהֶם נִקְרְאוּ טֹטָפוֹת.  In Bo he identifies טטפות as 4 to correspond to the 4 compartments but in Vaeschanan he says it corresponds to the 4 parshios.  Why the change?  The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 9) explains in our parsha it says וְהָיָ֤ה לְאוֹת֙ עַל־יָ֣דְכָ֔ה וּלְטֽוֹטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֣ין עֵינֶ֑יךָ, in the singular tense.  What is it that should be טוטפות?  The single aspect of leaving Egypt and that is only expressed in the two parshios of Bo, not in the additional parshios of Shema and Veha im shemoa and therefore the 4 must be referring to the amount of compartments in the tefillin which enhances the fulfillment of remembering leaving Egypt.  In Vaeschanan, the possuk says וְהָי֥וּ לְטֹֽטָפֹ֖ת בֵּ֥ין עֵינֶֽיךָ, in the plural, referring to all of the parshios.

 

We find the same change in Rashi's explanation about the two prohibitions of adding to a mitzvah, in Vaeschanan (4:2) he says לֹא תֹסִפוּ.  כְּגוֹן חָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת בַּתְּפִלִּין but in Reah (13:1) he says לֹֽא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו.  חֲמִשָּׁה טֹטָפוֹת, because the first issur is to add a non mitzvah item to the mitzvah and that is a fifth parsha but the second issur adds adding to the item of the mitzvah and that is a  fifth compartment. Nonetheless, we see from Rashi that the teffilin of the Midbar had 4 compartments, but 2 would remain empty. 

 

The Rashba Minachot says that even though two of the parshiot are only recorded later on in the Torah as part of the Torah, they were given as part of tefillin earlier.  What we see from here, says Rav Gedalia Schorr, is that the parshios of tefillin are not Torah parshios placed in tefillin but there is a unique din of parshios tefillin not as words of Torah.  As pointed add out in the past on the blog, this is an idea also advanced in the Amek Beracha in the name of the Rav but contradicts the Rav in Vaeschanan, Hilchot Megillah and Tefillin where he assumes that the parshios of the tefillin are a cut and paste of the parshios of the Torah with all the laws of the writing of parshios of the Torah and not a new din of parshios of tefillin. 

Why do the parshios of tefillin include the law of kedushas bechor of an animal.  What does that have to do with tefillin?  Klal Yisrael is called by Hashem (Shemos 4:22) בני בכורי ישראל.  What does this mean that we are the bechor of Hashem?  The Pachad Yitzchak Pesach maamer 81 develops the idea that a bechor is a mirror of the father.  The word for father is אב, the 1, the father leading to his "double," the בכר, the letters of doubling, ב is 2, כ is 20 and ר is 200, the doubling of all the units.  The word בכר is in reverse רכב, a chariot,  The idea of the bechor is to return the כבוד back to its source, the father.  By returning, going backward as a רכב as complete bittul to the source, then one is acting as a proper bechor.  This is the bechorness of Klal Yisrael.  We are meant to reflect the kavof of Hashem in the world.  By subjugating ourselves to Hashem, by being the rechev, we act as the bechor.  This is the message of tefillin, to become subjects of Hashem, to assert ourselves as the bechor.  This is the ide of the kedusha of the bechor.  That which is a reflection of the source is designated to remind us of our mission to reflect our Source.       

The part I didn't get to. 

Why is there a split between the two parshios of tefillin here and two later on in Sefer Devarim?  The opinion of Rabbenu Tam is that that the order of the parshios of the tefillin goes קדש והיה כי יביאך והיה אם שמוע שמע.  Why does he hold the parshois go out of the order they are written in?  Rav Solevetchik explains (shiurim on Stam,) that Rabbenu Tam holds the first two parshios and last two are divided into two categories.  The first two go right to left from the perspective of one standing opposite the reader for it is a commandment to remember the Exodus which is a message meant to be passed to others.  The thrust of yitzias mitzraim is told over to one's children, it is a message passed on about Hashem's control of the world.  The last two parshios however, go right to left from the perspective of the wearer of the tefillin in which case to the reader opposite והיה אם שמוע appears before שמע but from the wearer's "view" שמע comes first.  That is because the kabbalas ol represented by these two parshois are that of a personal kabbalah.  The first two parshios are the parshois of the nation, of the kedusha of Klal Yisrael in its totality as they collectevly experienced yitzias Mitzraim, the tefillin are speaking outwardly.  The last two parshios are the personal parshois, the one's that speak of the individual's kabbalas ol.  With this idea we can say that the parshios of the tzibbur, the one's of yitzias mitzraim are given in Bo, the time when Klal Yisrael is developing into a nation of Hashem.  The time for individual kabbalas ol is relevant when they are on the brink of entering Eretz Yisrael where there would no longer be one large national encampment of people and instead the individual commitment to Hashem had to be highlighted.     

Three Takes On A Midrash

דבר אחר:יהי לבי תמים בחקיך, זה חקת הפסח, וחקת פרה אדומה. למה? ששניהן דומין זה לזה. בזה נאמר: זאת חקת הפסח. ובזה נאמר (במדבר יט, ב): זאת חקת התורה. ואי אתה יודע איזו חקה גדולה מזו! משל לשתי מטרונות דומות, שהיו מהלכות שתיהן כאחת נראות שוות, מי גדולה מזו, אותה שחברתה מלוה אותה עד ביתה והולכת אחריה.כך בפסח נאמר בו חקה, ובפרה נאמר בה חקה, ומי גדולה הפרה שאוכלי פסח צריכין לה, שנאמר ( שם שם, יז): ולקחו לטמא מעפר שריפת החטאת. (שמות רבה יט:ב)

What is the comparison between the law of Pesach and the law of Parah, what is the question of which one is greater and why is the law of parah greater?  

Rav Kook (Midbar Shor 35) says based upon the Cuzari that the sin of the agel was that Klal Yisrael wanted to serve Hashem properly through the agel, logically it was a sensible thing to do, but at the end of the day it was wrong.  The lesson is that the ways of Hashem are beyond human logic and we at times must put aside our logic for G-dly logic.  The parah atones for the agel for death is the opposite of the desire of G-d to give life but yet G-d gives death for somehow that leads to a greater life.  This is beyond our comprehension to fathom.  Hence, all those that are involved in the process of the taharah from the tumas meis are tamah, meaning they don't see the good that comes out of death, it is a tumah, a hester panim but at the end, only at the end of the process is there taharah, can one see the good.  The lesson of the parah is the antithesis of the agel.  The parah teaches that at times the goal, the taharah, the G-dly logic can only be recognized at the end of the process.  The ends justify the means but the means don't justify the end.  Pesach teaches that sometimes there needs to be a jump, one doesn't have to wait to the end ,the geulah came early, sometimes doing what appears to humanly be correct is correct.  "נתגלתה השלמות הראוי' בסוף ג"כ באמצע. ואם היו כל ההנהגות כולן עפ"ז הדרך, שהמתגלה קודם גמר התכלית הי' נראה מחלק השלמות המכוון לרצונו ית', אז הי' מקום לבעל הדין לומר שיוסיף מצות ע"פ הנהגתו והשכלתו."  There is a balance that one must have of these two approaches, of using logic to try to prefect implementations of the rules of the Torah but at the same time suspending our logic for G-dly logic when we want to implement change.  It is ultimately the message of the of the parah that is greater for it only at the ends, not the means that one will be able to truly understand Hashem's plan. 

Rav Solevetchik (sefer of Stam miluim) says the Midrash is discussing two forms of acceptance of the decrees of G-d.  Rav Solevetchik (being a Briskor) says that the concept of a chok teaches us that we don't ask למה or מדוע but מה.  A Jew doesn't ask why but what should we do.  The defining moment of kabbalas haTorah is נעשה ונשמע, Klal Yisrael said what should we do, we will do.  There are two ways that one is challenged in this acceptance of faith.  Sometimes there are personal challenges that one must overcome, a person is temted to ask למה, why do I have to do this?  For this question comes the lesson of the parah, we don't ask why we accept the chukim of Hashem what he says to do, we do.  The lesson of pesach is that sometimes there are national calamities, when Klal Yisrael is challenged with difficult times and one is tempted to ask מדוע, why is this happening to us, for that we have the chok of Pesach.  Despite the setbacks, we know the geulah will eventually come.  The question of the midrash is which chok, which aspect of acceptance will be מטהר the person, will elevate the individual to rise above his egotistical, animalistic self?  The answer is the parah, it is the internal acceptance of a person which is most necessary to elevate himself.  After that one can be elevated further by the acceptance of the national fate and faith of Klal Yisrael. 

The Rebbe (maamer Parah 5624) says the Midrash is debating what is better, the path of the tzaddik or the path of the baal teshuva.  The chok of the pesach represents the forming of the nation of Klal Yisrael as pure tzaddikim like a newborn child.  The chok of the parah comes after there is tumah ,after sin, when does teshuva to clean up the sin.  The Midrash says that although the chok of pesach, the bath of no evil is of course great, no that we are in a world which does contain sin, that must be elevated and that is only possible through teshuva.  

A Timely Message

Why is kiddush hachodesh the first mitzvah given to Klal Yisrael?  After the bircahas hachodesh on Shabbas mevarchim, we say a short prayer for redemption from the golus, 'מי שעשה נסים לאבותינו וכו, why do we insert this prayer specifically after the birchas hachodesh?  

The Gemarah says that the world was created through 10 utterances of Hashem expressed through the 9 times it says 'ויאמר ה during the days of creation and the word בראשית was also an expression of creation.  Why is the first utterance expressed as בראשית and not ויאמר like the other utterances? The Sforno and Gra say that the creation of בראשית is the creation of time.  The most primal creation is time.  Why?  The word for time in lashon hakodesh is זמן which is related to the word הזמנה, an invitation.  An invitation means that there is a plan for the future.  In other words, the creation of time is a creation of a journey for the world.  When there is time, there is a past, a present and a future, there is a timeline to follow.  The past leads to the future.  There is an end to the timeline, an end game for the entire creation, a mission that has to be reached.  That mission is the mission of geulah.  The creation of בראשית is the mission statement of the creation and everything put into creation is there to facilitate the goal  

The exodus from Egypt was the creation of the nation of Klal Yisrael.  The nation that is to be the instrument for the geulah goes through its own act of creation.  Therefore, the first mitzvah given is the mitzvah of being mekadesh the zman.  To bring kedusha, to illuminate the path of the world until the geulah occurs, is the mission of Klal Yisrael.  That mission statement is expressed in the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh.  This is why after we say the bircas hachodesh we add a prayer for the geulah.  Our birchas hachodesh is all we have left from the mitzvah of kiddush hachodesh and we attach that to the message of kiddush hachodesh, to fulfill the mission of time, to usher in the geulah.

The All Important Staff

The Yalkut Shimoni Chukas (763): קח את המטה. זה שאמר הכתוב מטה עוזך ישלח ה' מציון זה המטה שהיה ביד יעקב אבינו שנאמר כי במקלי עברתי. והוא המטה שהיה ביד יהודה שנאמר חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך. והוא היה ביד משה שנאמר ואת המטה הזה תקח בידך. הוא היה ביד אהרן שנאמר וישלך אהרן את מטהו. והוא היה ביד דוד שנאמר ויקח מקלו בידו. והוא היה ביד כל מלך ומלך עד שחרב בית המקדש. וכן עתיד אותו המטה לימסר למלך המשיח, וכן עתיד לרדות בו את אומות העולם לכך נאמר מטה עוזך ישלח ה' מציון.  Why is the matteh so central that it always keeps on appearing?  Why is the opening miracle Aharon's staff turning to a snake and then turning back and eating the other staffs?  

The Alter Rebbe (who's hilulah is today, Friday) says that the word מטה means turning to, drawing down, for G-d gives life even to the those that rebel against Him such as Egypt, represented by the תנין.  That is what is represented by the staff of Aharon, representing the source of life coming into the world, is given even to Egypt, the תנין.  However, in the end, even the תנין is turned back into a snake for everything will eventually returned back to kedusha.  

This was the essence of the message of the maakot.  As the Alter Rebbe translated וידעו מצרים כי אני ה, when the Egyptians are broken, when the kelipa of Egypt is broken that the kedusha will be revealed.  That is why this is the opening salvo of Moshe and Aharon.  It came to establish the point and nature of the miracles.  This is why the staff must appear at such important junctions.  It is the symbol of the great tzaddikim that have won over evil.     

Reward/ Punishment For Animals

Revisiting the issue of reward/ punishment for animals touched on in the Divrei Chaim blog.  One of the sources that would seem to indicate the concept of reward/ punishment is from the forgs.  The Midrash on Tehillim (Ch. 28) says the frogs that jumped into the ovens were rewarded and didn't die but those that didn't did die.  This profo is cited by Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer Klal 55.)

Rav Yosef Engel cites a Midrash Berashis (26:6) in which it is clear that it is a three way machlokes

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵין לְךָ שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַיֵּב בָּאָדָם הַזֶּה אֶלָּא אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר אֲפִלּוּ זְאֵב וְכֶלֶב. רַבִּי הוּנָא בַּר גּוּרְיוֹן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ מַקֵּל אֲפִלּוּ רְצוּעָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ט, ג): כִּי אֶת עֹל סֻבֳּלוֹ וְאֵת מַטֵּה שִׁכְמוֹ שֵׁבֶט הַנֹּגֵשׂ בּוֹ הַחִתֹּתָ כְּיוֹם מִדְיָן, כְּיוֹם הַדִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא אַף אִילָנֵי סְרַק עֲתִידִין לִתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי מֵהָכָא (דברים כ, יט): כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה, מָה הָאָדָם נוֹתֵן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן, אַף עֵצִים נוֹתְנִין דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן.

R' Elazar only assigns punishment to mankind.  R' Nassan assigns it even to animals and R' Huna even to inanimate objects.  While one may be able to argue for some form of limited bechira for animals, it is hard to hear that for inanimate objects.  Rav Yosef Engel further points to a Yalkut in Koheles that learns the punishment for a stick from the possuk in Noach (9:5-6) שופך דם האדם which says the punishment of the inanimate object is death.  What does that mean?  Rav Engel explains based upon the principle of the Kabbalists that everything has a spark of kedusha that gives the item its existence and death means that spark of holiness is extinguished.    

It is possible in light of this to argue that reward and punishment of the Midrash just means if this holy spark will keep on going or will be extinguished.  It is not a real punishment but due to the fact that a negative effect happened due to an animal of object, it loses its right to be elevated, וצ"ע. 

There is an article discussing some of the points about reward/ punishment for animals on animallaw.info

Permanence of Yirah

וַתִּירֶ֤אןָ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹת֙ אֶת האלקים וְלֹ֣א עָשׂ֔וּ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֛ר דִּבֶּ֥ר אֲלֵיהֶ֖ן מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם וַתְּחַיֶּ֖יןָ אֶת־הַיְלָדִֽים.  A few pessukim later it says וַיְהִ֕י כִּי־יָֽרְא֥וּ הַֽמְיַלְּדֹ֖ת אֶת האלקים וַיַּ֥עַשׂ לָהֶ֖ם בָּתִּֽים:  Why does the Torah need to repeat that they feared Hashem?  Why does the Torah put the emphasis that the motivation of their actions stemmed from a fear of Hashem and not due to their car for the babies?  What is the middah keneged middah in their reward which Rashi tells us is receiving kehunah and malchus?  

We see that the actions of the midwives were motivated by their fear of heaven.  In the situation where they were in with a threat of the king over their head, it was not their feelings of love that would be enough to put their life in danger.  It is only due to their fear of heaven, of violating the commandments of Hashem, that forced them to do the right thing.  

The Shem MiShmuel (5674) says a house is something of permanence as the Gemarah beginning of Sukkah says.  Yiras Shamayim is the house, the אוצר (see Shabbas 31a,) which keeps everything else going.  Since the midwifes exhibited yirah, an אוצר which gives permanence to all of one's avodas Hashem, in reward they receive houses of permanence in form of the linage of kehuna and malchus. 

What does it mean that yiras shamayim gives permanence?  Yirah is the fall back that that spurns one's avodah in times of difficulty.  Like the midwives that had to make a difficult choice and were guided by their yiras shamayim, so tooone's avodah remains constant only if it is spurred on by yirah.  Feelings of ahavah have peaks and valleys, but yirah is a fallback that allows avodah's Hashem to be a constant. 

Names, Stars And Life Missions

The opening Rashi in Shemos says וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.  אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּנָאָן בְּחַיֵּיהֶם בִּשְׁמוֹתָם, חָזַר וּמְנָאָם בְּמִיתָתָם, לְהוֹדִיעַ חִבָּתָם, שֶׁנִּמְשְׁלוּ לְכוֹכָבִים, שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָם וּמַכְנִיסָם בְּמִסְפַּר וּבִשְׁמוֹתָם (שמות רבה), שֶׁנֶּ' "הַמּוֹצִיא בְמִסְפָּר צְבָאָם לְכֻלָּם בְּשֵׁם יִקְרָא  Why are Klal Yisrael compared to stars?  What does the mashal add, anything can be counted?  How does counting show the precious they are?

Rashi quotes the possuk in Yishayeh (40:26) המוציא במספר צבאם לכלם בשם יקרא.  There is another, similar possuk in Tehillim (147:4) מונה מספר לכוכבים לכולם שמות יקרא.  Why the switch from singular, בשם to שמות, plural?  The Midrash in Vakhal (48:2) says כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים אלו אלא כשהקב"ה מבקש לקרותם כאחד הוא קורא לכלם שם אחד וכשהוא קורא לכל אחד ואחד בשמו הוא קורא אותו מיכאל גבריאל לכך נאמר לכלם שמות יקרא.  The meaing of this Midrash is elaborated on by Rav Tzaddok in Sichas Malachay Hasharas and by Rav Kook in Midbar Shor #14.  They explain it a bit differently but the germane of the idea is the same.  The idea is that the name of a subject is an identification of its true identity, its purpose and importance.  The possuk which says בשם is talking about the grandeur of all of nature having one unified purpose and how inspiring that is.  There the focus is on the unified goal.  בשם יקרא, there is one unified goal and purpose to everything.  The possuk in Tehillim is focused on the individual goal of every individual star.  The possuk is focusing on the individual importance of everything.  That is בשמות, every one has their own mission to fulfill, their are various missions for individual souls.  

The counting of the shevatim is compared to the names an counting of the stars.  Just as a name indicates the mission and importance of the individual, so too the act of counting.  Counting means that there is something to be counted for, there is a purpose, a mission.      

As the golus of Mitzraim was starting it would seem that in the darkness of the golus the importance of Klal Yisrael would be lost.  They would cease to have an independent existence and would be subsumed under the mission of the Egyptians.  That is what the mashal of stars comes to tell us.  Just as stars are very far off from the earth and their impact is not felt very much, nonetheless they give off light.  The Gemarah Pesachim (2a) discusses if the light of stars is considered light and the conclusion is that it is.  What is the debate?  Since the light of stars does not illuminate like the moon and suns, one may say that is not defined as light.  However, the conclusion is that since stars have their own innate light that is called light.  Similarly, even in a dark golus where the power of Klal Yisrael to illuminate is diminished, they still retain a glimmer of light.  The connection to Hashem still exists and that light is what allows Klal Yisrael to survive (from Rav Moshe Shapira.)   

The Rebbe adds (Likutay Sichos volume 6) מנאן בשמותם, in their names, referring to the neshama of a person in a bodily form that is called a name, one has to awaken the מנין, the unifying count, the holy source, that unites all souls.  It is that connection to one's source that gives one the ability to overcome the boundaries of one's body,  Egypt, and the golus.  The ability to be light, to feel one's neshama, to be part of a collective mission, is what turns golus into geulah.  

Dan's Darkness

It is noted by holy books that the name of Hashem (in the יקוק form) does not appear in the parshios of Mikatz, Vayigash and the beginning of Vayechi.  Why is that?  And why does it finally appear in the possuk לישועתך קויתי ה?  And why is this prayer amended to the beracha of the tribe of Dan?  

The shevet of Dan is associated with the month of Teves.  What is the connection?  Chazal refer to ח, ט, י טבת as the three days of darkness.  The tribe of Dan is associated with those consumed with an inner darkness.  It is the tribe of Dan that brings along the פסל מיכה through the Yam Suf.  They are the rear guard of the tribes in the desert.  The ones holding up the rear spiritually.  

The darkness of the days of Teves is due to the fact that Teves is under the auspices of Esau.  It order to counteract this power it is necessary to have a tribe from Klal Yisrael that is associated with darkness but is able to transform this darkness into light.  That is the tribe of Dan.  As the Mictav M' Eliyahu (volume 2) elaborates on in his piece about Shimshon, see 'Shimshon the Messiah'. As Rav Dessler notes, in the beracha of Moshe, Dan is also compared to a lion in the same vein as Yehuda, דן גור אריה.  His kingship, his Messianic potential is due to his ability to steep into the dark forces and elevate them.  גור אריה יהודה, the essence of Yehuda is to rule, to be a lion but Dan first is Dan, has to associate with the lowness of life and then can elevate that to גור אריה.  

As explained in various sefarim, the name of Hashem is missing through the parshios of the descent of Klal Yisrael into the golus of Egypt.  In the golus the open hand of Hashem is no longer recognized.  It is a time of darkness.  It is in this time that the light of the tribe of Dan is able to illuminate some of the darkness by finding Hashem within the bleakness.  When Yaakov sees this middah present in the tribe of Dan, he evokes the name of Hashem.  Rashi says this is a prophecy about Shimson after he is captured.  Even when there is no more hope, he still is able to bring back a taste of the light.  

The Ramchal in מאמר הקיווי (available online) says the root of the word  קויתי is the word קו, a line, a reference to the Kabbilistic explanation of the construct of the world in which there is a concealment and then the light is brought back starting by a ray, a line of light.  In it this ray of light that Dan connects to.  Even in the bleakness of golus of Teves, he is able to find the ray of light to illiminate the darkness.  

Mashiach in 2 Years

 From the Mir parsha sheet:

But Mashiach didn't come in 2 years after the Chofetz Chaim's prophesy?

Eyes Of Yosef

The Mishna Zevachim (112b) says that in Mishchan Shiloh the maaser sheni and kadshim kalim could be eaten in any place that was within eyesight of the Mishkan.  In the Mikdash it was eaten within the walls of Jerusalem.  The Gemarah (118b) says רבי אבהו אמר אמר קרא בן פרת יוסף בן פרת עלי עין עין שלא רצתה לזון וליהנות מדבר שאינו שלו תזכה ותאכל כמלא עיניה.  What is the connection between Yosef not taking the wife of Potifar and koshim kalim eaten within eyesight?  The Gemarah says that the descendants of Yosef are not affected by yetzer harah בן פורת עולי עין, why are they above ayin harah?  

Yosef says ועתה אל תעצבו ואל יחר בעיניכם כי מכרתם אתי הנה כי למחיה שלחני אלקים לפניכם.  Yosef's perspective of life is to see the good in things. Even the heinous act of being sold into slavery is seen by Yosef as just a means of setting up Klal Yisrael in Egypt.  Even more than this, when he repeats this to the brothers after Yaakov's passing, he says וְאַתֶּ֕ם חֲשַׁבְתֶּ֥ם עָלַ֖י רָעָ֑ה אלקים חֲשָׁבָ֣הּ לְטֹבָ֔ה לְמַ֗עַן עֲשֹׂ֛ה כַּיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה לְהַחֲיֹ֥ת עַם־רָֽב׃ וְעַתָּה֙ אַל־תִּירָ֔אוּ אָנֹכִ֛י אֲכַלְכֵּ֥ל אֶתְכֶ֖ם וְאֶֽת־טַפְּכֶ֑ם, not only does he tell them not to worry, but he would take care of them because his descent to Egypt turned positive.  This is despite the fact that the brothers did not have any intension of doing anything for the success of Yosef, nonetheless the fact that it turned positive was reason to be positive toward his brother as well (see Tanya end of Ch. 12, Likutay Sichos volume 5 Vayigash sicha 2 footnote 48.)  It is the ability of Yosef to see the good even in what appears to be bad that made him the perfect man to be able to reverse the bad fortunes of the famine. 

It is this eye of goodness that Yosef has which allows him to see kedusha even beyond the walls of kedusha.  The positive eye of Yosef allows him to perceive kedusha even into areas which are beyond the walls of kedusha.  Therefore, his Mishkan allows maaser and kodshim kalim to be eaten in anything within eyesight.  Even that which is beyond the boundary can be elevated (Rav Kook in hesped on Hertzel and Shmuot Reyah.)  This is what allows Yosef to not be affected by ayin harah.  Those affected by ayin harah it means they are affected by external surroundings and events.  Someone who needs external validation and acceptance is affected by how others view him.  Someone who is able to rise above external negative events is not bothered by the view of others and therefore the evil eye is counterbalanced by his good eye (see Ein Ayah Berachot 55b translated on marehkohen.com)