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