Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a verse in Mishlei (15:15):

“All the days of a poor man are wretched, but a man who is of good heart will be in a constant festive state.”

In the context of the surrounding verses, this pasuk conveys moral wisdom regarding attitudes and dispositions that influence a person’s experiences—either toward meaningful, pleasant interactions or the opposite. The Gemara seeks to define what type of impoverishment leads to wretchedness and what type of “good heart” leads to a state of contentment.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi explains that the impoverished attitude is one of da’ato ketzara—literally, “short knowledge” or “truncated thinking”—whereas the good-hearted attitude is one of da’ato rechava—literally, “broad thinking.”

Commentaries offer different interpretations of these terms. Rashi (ibid.), Rabbenu Gershom (Bava Basra 145b), and Yalkut Shimoni (Nach, 953) explain that a person with da’ato ketzara is one who gets angry and annoyed easily, while someone with da’ato rechava is patient and tolerant. This fits well with common linguistic patterns in many languages, including Hebrew and English. We speak of someone being “short-tempered,” while someone with a more patient, forbearing nature is said to “take the long view.” Here, “long” is analogous to “broad.”

The Rashash (ibid.) offers a different perspective. He suggests that a person with broad thinking can anticipate future events and their implications, while a person with short thinking is shortsighted and more likely to suffer from seemingly sudden misfortunes. According to the Rashash, many so-called unexpected misfortunes are not truly sudden or unavoidable but rather the result of failing to properly anticipate and prepare.

A similar spatial metaphor is found in Chovos Halevavos (Shaar HaYichud 1), where he describes three dimensions of intellectual understanding: depth, length, and width.

Width refers to the ability to analyze a concept from all angles, incorporating many details—akin to a wide river.

Length refers to the ability to extend a concept and make it accessible through analogies, much like a river flowing over great distances.

Depth refers to the essential, underlying truths that drive intellectual inquiry, like the deep undercurrent of a river.

Though Chovos Halevavos may not have been referring specifically to our Gemara, his framework beautifully expands upon the Rashash’s interpretation of da’ato rechava.

Rashi, in our sugya, offers yet another interpretation of da’ato ketzara vs. da’ato rechava. He defines a person with “short” thinking as someone who “takes to heart all the worries of his friend and worries about everything that is to come upon him.” In contrast, a person with broad thinking “does not take such worries to heart.”

How does Rashi derive this interpretation from the Gemara’s language? Even metaphorically, how does “short” thinking translate into excessive worry? The association between broad thinking and peace of mind is easier to grasp—breadth implies greater capacity, allowing a person to bear life’s burdens with resilience. Perhaps Rashi infers that if da’ato rechava represents emotional expansiveness and tolerance, then da’ato ketzara must represent its opposite: an anxious, constricted state of mind.

Alternatively, it could be that “short” and “broad” in this context describe not the state of mind itself but its effects. A person who constantly worries—about others or themselves—feels tight, constricted, and anxious. In contrast, someone who is more accepting and optimistic, experiences a sense of expansiveness and freedom. Borrowing from the Rashash, one might argue that broad thinking fosters calmness because it allows a person to see the bigger picture. If one believes in a divine plan and the natural ups and downs of life, they will feel less anxious and hypersensitive. On the other hand, a person who lacks this broader perspective is trapped in immediate fears and distress, leading to hyperreactivity and an overfocus on negative emotions.

Regardless of the textual nuances, Rashi’s interpretation offers practical wisdom. Clearly, someone who is overly sensitive—taking on the burdens of others or obsessing over their own worries—will experience life as miserable and unpleasant. By contrast, one who can accept life’s uncertainties without excessive worry will enjoy life far more.

In psychological terms, Rashi is describing ego function—the ability to maintain healthy boundaries between one’s inner world and the outer world. A well-functioning ego allows a person to avoid excessive codependency and people-pleasing, while also enabling reasonable anticipation of the future without tipping into overthinking or a need for excessive control.

Our experience of life is shaped not just by external circumstances but by the breadth—or narrowness—of our perspective.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com