On Seeing the Hearts of Human Beings

Today’s Torah content is dedicated to the joyous occasion of the marriage of Jon Deutsch and Avigayil Lev. Jon has "graduated" from student, to coworker, to chavrusa and friend. Avigayil, another former student and fellow Slytherin, remains a daily presence in my virtual beis midrash. I am happy for them and I'm excited to see where their life leads them.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Dack Fayden, by Terese Nielsen

On Seeing the Hearts of Human Beings

Seeing the Heart of David

With few exceptions, Tanach tends to eschew descriptions of the physical appearances of its characters. Two of those exceptions can be found in Sefer Shmuel. The first is Shaul: “And [Kish] had a son, whose name was Shaul, young and handsome [1], and there was not among the children of Israel a more handsome person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was taller than any of the people” (I Shmuel 9:2)

The second notable exception is David, about whom it is said: “Now he was ruddy (admoni) with beautiful eyes (yafeh einayim) and a goodly appearance (tov ro’ee)” (ibid. 16:12).

In context it is easy to see why these physical descriptions are relevant to the narrative. Shmuel ha’Navi is sent by Hashem to anoint a new king to replace Shaul. He is told that the new king will be one of the sons of Yishai. He makes the journey to Yishai’s house, and the sons are summoned:

And it was upon their arrival that Shmuel saw Eliav and said: “Surely Hashem’s anointed is before Him.” But Hashem said unto Samuel: “Do not look at his appearance or at his tall stature, for I have rejected him; for it is not as man sees – for man looks at the outward appearance, but Hashem sees the heart” (ibid. 16:6-7)

Shmuel then cycles through the rest of Yishai’s sons, before finally settling on David:

Yishai then called Avinadav and brought him before Shmuel, but he said, “Hashem has not chosen this one either.” Then Yishai brought Shammah, but [Shmuel] said, “Hashem has not chosen this one either.” Yishai presented his seven sons before Shmuel, but Shmuel said to Yishai, “Hashem has not chosen these.” Shmuel said, “Are these all the boys?” and he said, “The youngest one is still left; he is tending the sheep now.” So Shmuel said to Yishai: “Send and bring him, for we will not sit [to dine] until he arrives here.” He sent and brought him. He was ruddy with beautiful eyes and a goodly appearance. Hashem then said, “Arise and anoint him, for this is he!” (ibid. 16:8-12)

The question is: What was Shmuel’s mistake? The fact that Hashem had to correct him, saying, “Do not look at his appearance or at his tall stature … for man looks at the outward appearance, but Hashem sees the heart” implies that Shmuel erroneously focused on David’s outward appearance. How are we to understand Shmuel’s error? Are we to think that such a great prophet as Shmuel got caught up in appearance-based superficialities? And if Shmuel was merely concerned about how the new king would be perceived in the eyes of his people, did he really think that such considerations outweighed the quality of the king’s heart?

The Malbim [2] provides a conceptually and textually sound answer:

“he was ruddy”: Here is shown to us the truth of what was written earlier: “for it is not as man sees – for man looks at the outward appearance, but Hashem sees the heart.” For David was ruddy, [indicating] that “redness” was dominant in him [3], and he was [therefore] genetically disposed to [commit acts of] bloodshed. At the same time, good qualities were also indicated in him, for he “had beautiful eyes and a goodly appearance,” which indicated that he was analytically sharp-minded and had a healthy constitution …

If Shmuel had only relied on his human perception, he would have concluded that [David] was not worthy [of being king,] but Hashem “sees hearts” and knew that out of his good free-will decisions he would do only justice and righteousness, and that he would use the nature of “redness” implanted within him to wage the wars of Hashem and to annihilate the doers of iniquity from [every] city. This is what is desirable in the eyes of Hashem, that even though a person has a natural inclination towards evil, he should rule over it with righteousness and good free-will decisions. This is [the intent of] that which was written: “Arise and anoint him, for this is he” – [namely, this is the one] who is desirable before Me.

According to the Malbim, Shmuel’s mistake did not stem from a misguided overvaluation of appearances. Rather, he was legitimately concerned that David’s natural disposition towards violence, as indicated by his ruddy appearance, would render him unfit to be king over Israel. Indeed, this was a legitimate concern. This is precisely why Hashem needed to step in and provide assurance from the perspective of Divine omniscience, saying: “It is true that such a disposition could render a man unfit to be king, but this man will harness his aggressive nature and channel it towards the good.” “He was ruddy with beautiful eyes and a goodly appearance.” His potentially destructive nature will be actualized, but for the good.

Seeing the Hearts of Our Fellow Human Beings

One of the central ethical mitzvos of the Torah is ve’halachta bi’drachav (“you shall walk in His ways”). The Rambam [4] defines this mitzvah as follows:

We are commanded to make ourselves resemble Him (exalted is He) in accordance with our ability, as it is stated: "you shall walk in His ways" (Devarim 28:9). This commandment has been repeated in the statement: "to walk in all of His ways" (ibid. 11:24). The [Oral Torah's] explanation of this matter is as follows:

"Just as Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu is called 'merciful,' so shall you be merciful. Just as Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu is called 'gracious,' so shall you be gracious. Just as Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu is called 'righteous,' so shall you be righteous. Just as Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu is called 'kind,' so shall you be kind" (Sifre).

And this commandment has been repeated in different words: "you shall follow after Hashem, your God" (ibid. 13:5), and its explanation is also that we should make our good actions and lofty character traits resemble those which are ascribed to Him (may He be exalted) by way of allegory. May He be exceedingly exalted over everything.

The core of this mitzvah is that we should model our own actions and characteristics after the allegorical descriptions of Hashem’s actions and characteristics. If so, then Hashem’s statement to Shmuel, “for it is not as man sees – for man looks at the outward appearance, but Hashem sees the heart” is not to be understood merely as a particular correction of a particular man’s mistake, but as a universal ethical imperative. Accordingly, we must ask ourselves: What can we do to emulate the Divine attribute of looking past outward appearances of our fellow human beings, and instead, to “see their hearts”?

I recently finished reading Dr. Tara Brach’s book Radical Compassion. In Chapter 9, “Seeing the Goodness,” Tara writes about techniques for remembering to see the basic goodness in all human beings. Rather than attempt to summarize the main ideas of the chapter, which are built upon the previous chapters, I’d like to relate a story the author heard read at a Christmas Eve church service. When combined with the Malbim’s commentary, I believe this provides us with an approach to answering our question:

One Christmas Day, a woman, her husband, and their year-old son had driven a long way before they found an open diner by the side of the road.

It was quiet and almost empty, and they were waiting gratefully for their food when the little boy began waving from his high chair and calling, "Hi there!" to someone behind them. To the mother's dismay, it turned out to be a wreck of a man, unkempt and unwashed, obviously a homeless drunk. Now he was waving back at her boy and calling, "Hi there, baby, hi there, big boy ... I see ya, buster."

The woman and her husband exchanged looks, and the few other people in the diner were shooting disapproving glances their way. And the old guy went on, even after their food came. "Do you know patty-cake? Attaboy ... Do you know peeka boo? Hey, look, he knows peekaboo." The mother tried turning the high chair around, but her son shrieked and twisted to face his new buddy.

Finally, giving up on their meal, her husband got up to pay the bill, and the mother took the baby in her arms, praying that she could quickly get past the old drunk, who was seated by the door. But as they approached, her son reached out with both arms – his pick-me-up signal – and propelled himself into the man's open arms.

But now the mother could see tears in the man's eyes as her son laid his head on his shoulder. He gently held and rocked the boy, and then he looked straight into her eyes. "You take care of this baby," he said firmly. And as he slowly handed him back, "God bless you, ma'am. You've given me my Christmas gift."

She must have mumbled something in return, but as she rushed to the car, tears streaming down her face, she could only think, "My God, my God, forgive me."

This woman underwent a shift in her perspective akin to what Shmuel ha’Navi experienced. At first she could only see this man’s outward appearance. He was homeless. He was drunk. He was dirty. He was what Tara calls “an Unreal Other” – a person who happens to belong to the same species as ourselves, but is somehow “less real” than ourselves and those with whom we identify. And this man’s homelessness, drunkenness, and dirtiness served as evidence to expand his Unreal Otherness by generating a complete past, present, and future of him in her mind. On that basis, whether consciously or unconsciously, this man was written off as being intrinsically worth less than she, her husband, and her baby, and was destined to remain as such.

It was only when she saw the man’s reaction to her baby – to her baby’s natural and unbiased reaction to another human being – that she was able to “see the heart” of this man. And when he looked into her eyes and expressed gratitude, he became a Real Person, just like her.

Now, one might object to this line of reasoning, saying that seeing an Unreal Other as a Real Person has nothing to do with emulating Hashem’s “seeing the heart” mentioned in Sefer Shmuel. After all, according to the Malbim, Hashem’s proclamation of David’s worthiness to be king was predicated on the knowledge that he would make good free will decisions, choosing to channel his natural tendencies to his service of God. Such knowledge can only come from Divine omniscience, which – by definition – is impossible for finite human beings to emulate, and wouldn’t even fall under the purview of ve’halachta bi’drachav.

I disagree. When the Rambam introduces the mitzvah by saying, “We are commanded to make ourselves resemble Him … in accordance with our ability,” and “we should make our good actions and lofty character traits resemble those which are ascribed to Him … by way of allegory” he is acknowledging the fact that the Divine attributes are intrinsically different from our human emulations of them. Indeed, the entire first section of the Moreh ha’Nevuchim substantiates this reading. Moreover, as my Rosh ha’Yeshiva pointed out, the Sifre cited by the Rambam bears out this point. Chazal don’t say: “Just as Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu is merciful, so shall you be merciful” but rather, “Just as Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu is called merciful, so shall you be merciful.” In other words, Hashem’s mercy is of a fundamentally different nature than human mercy, and there is absolutely no way we can emulate it. Rather, we must study Hashem’s modes of action as presented in Tanach and translate them into human ethical standards.

Such is the approach I am suggesting here. Unlike Hashem, we lack the ability to see into the hearts of our fellow human beings to know what choices they will make. But like Hashem, we can take active steps to look past their outward appearances, to refrain from making definitive judgments and predictions of future behavior on the basis of what our eyes see – as if we were as omniscient as God – and instead, to see them as a fellow tzelem Elokim (“created in with a divine form”), with the same humanity as ourselves.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that we ought to be naïve or unrealistically optimistic in our dealings with other people. If, for example, an actual mugger approaches us on the street, we should take whatever precautions are necessary. But at the same time, we can still see that person as a fellow human being.

Seeing Our Own Hearts

Most importantly, this perspective must be applied to our own hearts. When we look in the mirror, we must see past the misplaced feelings of certainty we have about our “destiny” based on our dispositions and the lot we were dealt in life. There is no such thing as destiny. "See, I have placed before you today the life and the good, and the death and the bad … Choose life, that you and your offspring may live" (Devarim 30:15,19). We cannot choose our genetics or our circumstances, but we can choose what to do with them. By seeing our own heart through Divine eyes, we unlock our ability to “choose life.”

[1] The pasuk uses the phrase “tov” (“goodly”), but the Targum translates this as “shapir” (“beautiful” or “handsome”), and the end of the pasuk supports this translation.

[2] Rav Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel (Malbim), Commentary on Sefer I Shmuel 6:12

[3] I don’t fully understand what he means, but my guess is that it reflects some sort of theory of humourism. I don’t think it matters much, as long as we take it as his factual premise and then see how he applies it.

[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Mitzvas Aseh #8

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Tehilim 23: The Lord is My Shepherd

This can be read as a standalone post, but is also a follow-up to How to Learn Tehilim (Psalms), which I recommend reading first if you haven't already done so.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Plains (Shards of Alara), by Michael Komarck

Tehilim 23: The Lord is My Shepherd

Here is the text of Tehilim 23:

(1) A psalm by David. Hashem is my Shepherd; I shall not lack. (2) In lush meadows He lays me down, beside tranquil waters He leads me. (3) He restores my soul. He leads me on level paths [1] for His Name's sake. (4) Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no harm, for You are with me. Your rod and Your staff - they comfort me. (5) You will prepare a table before me in view of my tormentors. You anointed my head with oil, my cup overflows. (6) Only goodness and kindness will pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of Hashem for long days.

Now let's jump right into the four questions (see How to Learn Tehilim for more on this method).

Question #1: What is this perek about as a whole?

Let's start by identifying the pivot point. Although it's debatable, I think the cleanest pivot point is between verses 4 and 5. Verses 1-4 is the mashal (allegory), in which David ha'Melech describes himself as a sheep:

(1) A psalm by David. Hashem is my Shepherd; I shall not lack. (2) In lush meadows He lays me down, beside tranquil waters He leads me. (3) He restores my soul. He leads me on level paths [1] for His Name's sake. (4) Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no harm, for You are with me. Your rod and Your staff - they comfort me.

Verses 5-6 are the nimshal (the decoded mashal), in which David speaks as a human:

(5) You will prepare a table before me in view of my tormentors. You anointed my head with oil, my cup overflows. (6) Only goodness and kindness will pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of Hashem for long days.

Unlike Tehilim 92, in which the two halves were quite disparate and we had to break down Question #1 into four sub-questions, we only need to break Tehilim 23 into two sub-questions: (a) What is the nimshal? (b) What is gained by expressing this idea as a mashal? (Note that this is basically asking "What is the main idea?" and "What is the function of the pivot point?")

This perek was surprisingly difficult to figure out, considering how overt the theme appeared to be. Clearly this perek has something to do with David's relationship with Hashem, and his trust in Him, which is compared to the reliance of a sheep on a benevolent shepherd. But what aspect of trust or reliance in Hashem is the perek talking about? One might think that this perek is talking about a high level of hashgachah pratis (personal divine supervision) - but if that's the case, then why use this mashal of a sheep doing "normal sheep-things"? Indeed, there is nothing in this mashal or the nimshal which points specifically to hashgachah pratis. [2] If anything, it would seem that this perek is about God's hashgachah klalis (general supervision, or laws of nature) - but if that's true, how can David speak about it with such an emphasis on personal guidance?

Thankfully, the Ibn Ezra showed us the way. Not only did he explain many of the particulars in the perek, but he even explicitly identified a unified theme. Here is what he wrote:

This psalm speaks of the servants of Hashem who forsake all addictions to worldly pleasures (taivos ha'olam) and are content with their portion (smeichim b'chelkam). They consider bread and water the equivalent of the delights provided by any and all delicacies, for their thoughts and hearts are directed to the pleasures of the Olam ha'Ba (World to Come). Hence, they forsake the pleasures of the moment for the eternal pleasures.  

My chavrusa and I really liked the crux of the Ibn Ezra's theory. However, we didn't like the way he framed the point about Olam ha'Ba, we weren't convinced by his explanation of all the details in the pesukim, and we weren't able to see a unified idea in the perek on that basis. Nevertheless, we were able to take his initial definition of the perek and develop our own approach. 

Here is the 1-4 sentence summary of the main idea, according to our understanding:

This perek is about the enjoyment, security, and tranquility attained by the individual whose life revolves around his needs instead of his wants (and certainly instead of his desire-fueled fantasies). The benefits of such a lifestyle are manifold: he will derive immense gratification when partaking of the most basic necessities (e.g. experiencing a meal of bread and water as though he were eating at feast with wine); he will ride through life on an even-keel of contentedness, instead of a roller-coaster of extreme highs and lows (as happens to most of humanity); he will face impending harm with equanimity, finding comfort in the opportunities for insight that arise from such situations; and he will be free of the existential dread and depression of a meaningless existence, since his life revolves around the pursuit of knowledge. As a result of this prioritization of his needs and his recognition that God has provided His world with everything that is necessary, he will feel as though he is being pursued by goodness and kindness throughout his days, enabling him to devote his life to the pleasurable pursuit and contemplation of knowledge. 

(You can see where we overlap with the Ibn Ezra and where we deviate. It's possible that this is what he meant by "their thoughts and hearts are directed to the pleasures of Olam ha'Ba," but I think that's a difficult read.)

Question #3: Is this perek true, in whole or in part?

We're actually going to skip Question #2 and come back to it later, since my guess is that there might be some questions about the veracity of the main idea. Is it really true that Hashem has provided for all of our needs? Is it true that we can achieve all of these benefits simply by prioritizing our needs over our wants? Is this level of bliss actually attainable by someone who is sameach b'chelko in this manner?

Truthfully, each of these questions deserves its own blog post. Instead of attempting to address them in a comprehensive manner, I'm going to share with you an excerpt from the Rambam which addresses all of these points. 

This excerpt is from the part of the Moreh ha'Nevuchim [3] in which the Rambam lays the foundations of his explanation of hashgachah and his commentary on Sefer Iyov. The specific context of the passage is the Rambam's assertion the majority of harm that we suffer in this world is self-inflicted, and is a result of our own ignorance and/or stupidity. The Rambam argues that the major cause of this category of poor decision-making is the pursuit of superfluous goods, beyond our basic needs. He writes:

(Note: the paragraph breaks are mine; the underlines indicate the parts which are most relevant to our perek - though, admittedly, it was difficult not to underline everything!)

This class of [self-inflicted] harms originates in man’s flaws, such as excessive desire for eating, drinking, and sex, indulgence in these things in undue measure, or in improper manner, or partaking of unhealthy food. 

This course brings diseases and afflictions upon body and soul alike. The suffering of the body [in this regard] is well known. Those of the soul are twofold: First, such harms of the soul as are the necessary consequence of changes in the body, insofar as the soul is a force residing in the body; it has therefore been said that the properties of the soul depend on the condition of the body. Secondly, the soul, when accustomed to superfluous things, acquires a strong habit of desiring things which are neither necessary for the preservation of the individual nor for that of the species. This desire is without a limit, whereas things which are necessary are few in number and restricted within certain limits - but what is superfluous is without end. For example, you desire to have your vessels of silver, but golden vessels are still better; others have even vessels of sapphire, or perhaps they can be made of emerald or rubies, or any other substance that could be suggested. 

Those who are ignorant and perverse in their thought are constantly in trouble and pain because they cannot get as much of superfluous things as a certain other person possesses. They will often expose themselves to great dangers, for example, by sea voyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary. When they thus meet with the consequences of the course which they adopt, they complain of the decrees and judgments of God; they begin to blame God, and are astonished by His [perceived] injustice, that He has not enabled them to acquire great riches, with which they could buy large quantities of wine for the purpose of making themselves drunk, and numerous concubines adorned with various kind of ornaments of gold, embroidery, and jewels, for the purpose of driving themselves to sexual indulgence beyond their capacities – as if the whole universe existed exclusively for the purpose of giving pleasure to these low people.

The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this universe the properties which they imagine cause these great "evils" which do not help these imperfect persons to obtain the degenerate things which they seek, and to bring their evil souls to the aim of their desires, though these, as we have shown, are really without limit. 

The virtuous and wise, however, see and comprehend the wisdom of God displayed in the Universe. Thus David says: “All of the ways of Hashem are kindness and truth, to those who guard His covenant and His testimonies” (Tehilim 25:10). For those who observe the nature of the Universe and the commandments of the Torah, and know their purpose, see clearly God's kindness and truth in everything; they seek, therefore, that which the Creator intended to be the aim of man, namely, pursuit of knowledge. Due to the needs of the body, they seek that which is necessary for bodily maintenance – “bread to eat and garment to clothe” (Bereishis 28:20), and this is very little - but they seek nothing superfluous. With very slight exertion man can obtain [his bodily needs], so long as he is contented with that which is necessary.

All the difficulties and troubles we meet in this respect are due to the desire for superfluous things. When we seek unnecessary things, we have difficulty even in finding that which is necessary. For the more we desire to have that which is superfluous, the more we meet with difficulties; our strength and possessions are spent in unnecessary things, and are lacking when required for that which is necessary.

Observe how nature proves the correctness of this assertion. The more necessary a thing is for living beings, the more easily it is found and the cheaper it is; the less necessary it is, the rarer and dearer it is. For example, air, water, and food are necessary to man. Air is most necessary, for if man is without air a short time he dies, while he can be without water a day or two. Air is also undoubtedly found more easily and cheaper [than water]. Water is more necessary than food, for some people can be four or five days without food, provided they have water; water also exists in every country in larger quantities than food, and is also cheaper. The same proportion can be noticed in the different kinds of food; that which is more necessary in a certain place exists there in larger quantities and is cheaper than that which is less necessary. No intelligent person, I think, considers musk, amber, rubies, and emerald as very necessary for man except as medicines – and they, as well as other like substances, can be replaced for this purpose by herbs and minerals ...

It is no wrong or injustice for one person to have many bags of the finest myrrh and garments embroidered with gold, while another lacks those things, which are not necessary for our maintenance. He who has them has not thereby obtained control over anything that could be an enhancement of his [true] nature, but has only obtained something illusory or deceptive; the other, who does not possess that which is not wanted for his maintenance, does not miss anything indispensable: “Whoever took more had nothing extra and whoever took less was not lacking; everyone according to what he eats had they gathered” (Shemos 26:18). This is the rule at all times and in all places; no notice should be taken of exceptional cases, as we have explained.

Can you see why my mind went to this excerpt from the Rambam while thinking about the Ibn Ezra's interpretation of Tehilim 23? It's almost as if the Rambam is giving a shiur on all of the premises of our perek!

Personally, I find the Rambam's argument to be convincing enough to accept this perek as true, even though there are many details of practical application that can still use some verification. Enough for now, though. 

Question #2: What is being said in detail, and how?

As I did last time, I will now provide a brief commentary on each pasuk with the goal of showing how each part develops or reflects the main idea. In some cases I'll use the Ibn Ezra's commentary, and in other cases I'll provide the explanation that my chavrusa and I came up with.

(1) The Ibn Ezra points out that the phrase "lo echsar" ("I shall not lack") is a grammatically incomplete statement, since it doesn't tell us what David doesn't lack (i.e. "I shall not lack _____"). Ibn Ezra fills in the blank in accordance with his understanding of the main idea, explaining that David means: "I shall not lack anything that I need." In other words, the person who is sameach b'chelko (content with his portion) is the one who will relate to Hashem as the Shepherd depicted in this mashal. Likewise, those who do not forsake their "worldly lusts" will not be able to relate to Hashem as the Shepherd in this manner.

(2) Just as a sheep lying down in "lush meadows" is surrounded by all the food he needs, so too, the person who prioritizes his needs over his wants will find that everything he needs is within reach. The Rambam acknowledged this in the excerpt above, saying: "With very slight exertion man can obtain [his bodily needs], so long as he is contented with that which is necessary." The Ibn Ezra explains that "tranquil waters" is the opposite of "rushing waters," which a good shepherd would avoid, since the sheep might fall in and be swept away. So too, the person who is sameach b'chelko will not endanger himself by pursuing superfluous goods, as the Rambam wrote about the fools: "They will often expose themselves to great dangers, for example, by sea voyage, or service of kings, and all this for the purpose of obtaining that which is superfluous and not necessary."

(3) Whereas the previous pasuk refers the acquisition of physical needs, which is only a means to an end, "He restores my soul" refers to the satisfaction of the soul through the pursuit of knowledge, which is the ultimate end - an end alluded to at the end of the pasuk: "for His Name's sake" (i.e. for the sake of knowledge of God). "he leads me on level paths" refers to the even-keel of contentedness I wrote about in my summary of the main idea. Most people spend the majority of their lives chasing peaks of extreme pleasure separated by long periods of "quiet desperation." 

(4) "the valley of the shadow of death" is a mashal for situations of potential harm. In these situations the knowledge-seeking person who is sameach b'chelko will "fear no harm," even if there is harm to fear, "because You are with me" - which the Targum translates as "because Your word (i.e. wisdom) is with me." This "word of God" manifests itself in two forms: as a "rod" ("sheivet" lit. "rod of punishment"), which alludes to the knowledge that can be gleaned from the yissurin (afflictions) that he might suffer, and as a "staff" ("mishaan" lit. "support"), which alludes to the practical decision-making knowledge he can use to get himself out of harm's way. In other words, either he will use his wisdom to avoid harm, or he will suffer the harm but learn from it and use this knowledge to further his development. Both options offer comfort (albeit a mature type of comfort - not the childish kind that many people seek from God).

(5) I don't see this pasuk as introducing a new idea, but only providing clarification of the previous ideas. As the Ibn Ezra explained: "You will prepare a table ... You anointed my head with oil, my cup overflows" expresses how someone who "forsakes all taivos ha'olam and is content with his portion" will perceive even the simple pleasures of life, such as "bread to eat and garment to clothe," as an opulent extravaganza. I also believe that the use of the all three tenses - future ("You will prepare a table"), past ("You anointed my head with oil"), and present ("my cup overflows") - supports the notion that this perek is about how Hashem provides us with everything we need in nature, which is true for all times. David emphasizes "in front of my tormentors" to show the extent of his peace of mind: even when he is antagonized by those who knowingly and intentionally aim to cause him pain, he is comforted by the "rod" and "staff" of the "Shepherd."

(6) One of my friends pointed out the oddity here, asking: "What is moving in this pasuk and what is stationary?" You would expect David to be chasing after the "tov" (goodness) and "chesed" (kindness), depicting them as stationary and himself as moving. Instead, he says, "Only tov and chesed will pursue me." He is the one who is stationary, "sitting in the house of Hashem," while the tov and chesed chase him! Again, this is another support for the way we're learning this perek, namely, that it's describing the mentality of the person who is content with satisfying his basic needs. This person recognizes that there is abundant tov and chesed all around, to the point where he feels that it is coming directly to him, and he doesn't even have to move - just like the lamb whose shepherd led it to lie down in lush meadows. "I shall sit/dwell in the house of Hashem for long days" is the explicit nimshal corollary to the phrase in the mashal: "for His Name's sake," which alluded to David's pursuit of knowledge. In other words, obtaining one's physical needs and being sameach b'chelko is not an end in and of itself, but is a means to the end (i.e. involvement in a life of learning).

To reiterate: this is just an example of the manner in which Question #2 should be answered. I realize that I haven't explained every single detail or answered every question, and that some of my explanations and answers are more speculative than others. That's okay. Your goal should be to read the perek through the framework of the main idea - as you currently understand it - see how that idea is developed through the particulars, revise and sharpen your main idea, and keep repeating the process until you've refined your understanding as much as you can.

Question #4: What of it?

The answer to Question #4 surprised me. Tehilim 23 has quite a reputation among Jews and Christians. Many people regard it as an affirmation of reliance on God's personal protection, comfort, and consolation. Some use it as a plea for Divine guidance in times of fear, danger, and uncertainty. Others regard it as a description of what it feels like to be close to God - a state of being that is characterized by protection, guidance, comfort, and tranquility. I'm not saying that these approaches are wrong or misguided. They're just not the approach that we or the Ibn Ezra have taken.

According to our approach, the purpose of this perek is to show us the path to tranquility, but to teach us that this path requires a major overhaul of our value system and our priorities in life. David ha'Melech's description of being shepherded by Hashem sounds great, but how many of us are willing to do the work that it takes to get there? Not many! If I may repurpose the poetic statement of the Rav [4]:

[When] we sing the psalm, “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters” (Ps. 23), etc., etc., and we believe with our entire hearts in the ultimate destination of homo religiosis ["religious man"], not the path leading to that destination. For the path that eventually will lead to the “green pastures” and to the “still waters” is not the royal road, but a narrow, twisting footway that threads its course along the steep mountain slope, as the terrible abyss yawns at the traveler’s feet.

In this sense I would almost characterize Tehilim 23 as a "psalm of rebuke." [5] It should be brought to mind and recited when we feel lacking, hungry, in danger of being swept away, weary, jostled by life's vicissitudes, lost without a sense of purpose, afraid of harm, afraid to face suffering, afraid to face our tormentors. When we find ourselves inundated by these feelings, Tehilim 23 reminds us that there is a way to alleviate our suffering and find contentment, security, and peace of mind - but it is up to us to change ourselves if we wish to partake of that bliss. 

To put it differently: we cannot spend our days chasing after superfluity and indulging in our addictions to physical and psychological pleasures and then turn around and complain that we are miserable. Similarly, we cannot demand that Hashem be our Shepherd if we are not willing to live as His lamb - as a creature who is to live a life free of indulgence, loyally following the dictates of our Shepherd.

There is a sense that we live in an era dominated by fear, anxiety, crisis, depression, hopelessness, confusion, loneliness, anger, helplessness, insecurity, restlessness, purposelessness, and a host of other negative emotions. Today, perhaps more than ever, Tehilim 23 is a necessary reminder that a return to simplicity will bring sanity and serenity in its wake - provided that the "simplicity" is a life rooted in satisfying our physical and psychological needs so that we can live a life of knowledge. 

Concluding Thoughts

That's all I've got for Tehilim 23 for now. Remember: I am NOT, by any means, an expert in Tehilim. I'm still trying to figure all of this out myself. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the perek and my analysis. 

[1] this translation follows Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary to Sefer Tehilim 23:3; this makes more sense than "paths of righteousness," since the pasuk is comparing David to a sheep, and sheep are neither righteous nor wicked

[2] I intended to support this point by comparing Tehilim 23 to Tehilim 91, which does seem to be talking about hashgachah pratis. I wanted to cite the entire perek, but I felt that this would interrupt the flow of the analysis, so I relegated it to a footnote. Here is Tehilim 91:

(1) Whoever sits in the refuge of the Most High, he shall dwell in the [protective] shade of the Almighty. (2) I will say of Hashem, "[He is] my refuge and my fortress; my God, I will trust in Him." (3) For He will deliver you from the ensnaring trap, from devastating pestilence. (4) With His pinion, He will cover you, and beneath His wings you will be protected; His truth is shield and armor. (5) You shall not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, (6) nor the pestilence that walks in gloom, nor the destroyer who lays waste at noon. (7) A thousand may fall victim at your side and a myriad at your right hand, but to you it shall not approach. (8) You will merely peer with your eyes and you will see the retribution of the wicked. (9) Because [you said], "You, Hashem, are my refuge," you have made the Most High your abode. (10) No evil will befall you, nor will any plague come near your tent. (11) He will charge His angels for you, to protect you in all your ways. (12) On [their] palms they will carry you, lest you strike your foot against a stone. (13) Upon the lion and the viper you will tread; you will trample the young lion and the serpent. (14) For he has yearned for Me and I will deliver him; I will elevate him because he knows My Name. (15) He will call upon Me and I will answer him; I am with him in distress; I will release him and I will bring him honor. (16) With long life will I satisfy him, and I will show him My salvation. 

See how different the particulars and the overall tone is in comparison to Tehilim 23? Both deal with reliance on God for protection, but Tehilim 91 seems to be a more particular type of supervision, whereas Tehilim 23 is dealing with something different. 

[3] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:12

[4] Rav Yosef Dov ha'Levi Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, Footnote 4

[5] see Rabbeinu Avraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary to Tehilim 146:2, where he seems to imply that this is a genre of Tehilim