diff --git "a/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile/English/merged.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile/English/merged.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,835 @@
+Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile
+ספר דניאל; הגלות כהזדמנות
+merged
+https://www.sefaria.org/Sefer_Daniel;_Opportunity_in_Exile
+This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
+-Rabbi Chaim Jachter, Kol Torah Publications, Teaneck, NJ, 2021
+-sefaria.org
+
+Sefer Daniel; Opportunity in Exile
+
+Introduction
+
+Transforming the Covid-19 Pandemic into a Win
The moment in March 2020 the Rabbinical Council of Bergen County announced the lockdown of all Batei Knesset and schools in our area, I resolved to turn the dire and unprecedented situation into a gain. Although fear permeated the air, death announcements were frightfully frequent, and strict isolation was debilitating, the Jewish way is to follow Nachum Ish Gam Zo’s credo “Gam Zo LeTovah”, meaning that there must be some good we can extract from even the most dire situations.
+In the spirit of Shimshon’s phrase “MeiAz Yatza Matok”, meaning “from the strong emerges something sweet” (Shofetim 14:14), we devoted deep attention to Sefer Daniel during the isolation of May-June 2020 and the most unconventional learning situation of April-June 2021. Despite the many handicaps, our TABC Talmidim rose to the occasion and delved deeply into Sefer Daniel.
+It is in this spirit that we present the fruits of our learning in these most challenging of circumstances. Some of the emotions and feelings of those times have been preserved in these pages composed during this trying period. For this reason, we occasionally cite students’ comments verbatim. We feel that sharing these emotions is most appropriate for the solemn lessons set forth in Sefer Daniel.
+Unfortunately, Sefer Daniel is not traditionally part of the Yeshiva high school curriculum. It is not even part of more advanced Yeshiva learning. I discovered that this is a very big mistake. The lessons set forth in Sefer Daniel are fundamental to Jewish thought and Jewish life, especially in our times. By ignoring Sefer Daniel, we risk not inspiring ourselves and the upcoming generations.
+Our hope is that our work will demonstrate the excitement and drama of Sefer Daniel which make it a compelling learning experience for Yeshiva High School and advanced students. We hope our book begins to bring about the time when no one misses the unforgettable opportunity to learn Sefer Daniel with its most foundational lessons that express the core of Jewish life and outlook.
+
+Dedication
+
+It is a special honor to dedicate this Sefer in memory of Avi Gilad zt”l. My learning and teaching of Sefer Daniel began with a conversation with Avi during a parent-teacher conference at Torah Academy of Bergen County in November 2000. Avi suggested that I learn Sefer Daniel with the boys, noting that Sefer Daniel is most interesting and compelling. I took his recommendation to heart, and it proved to be excellent advice. Students indeed have very much enjoyed learning Sefer Daniel. Our Sefer reflects the keen interest that students continue to experience as a result of Avi’s initiative. “Opportunity in Exile” is the magnificent end-product of Mr. Gilad’s encouragement and willingness to think out-of-the-box.
+The Hebrew title for this book, “Av L’Dugma,” captures Avi’s personality. Avi continues to serve as a “Dugma”, an example par excellence, of how a Jew should live. He was a highly involved and dedicated husband, father, grandfather, son, brother, and uncle. He never missed a Minyan and diligently learned the Daf Yomi. He was a very honest and very successful businessman who was well liked and respected in the communities in which he lived.
+I vividly recall my last visit with Avi in a Manhattan hospital. As I was leaving, his eldest grandchild entered the room. The love between grandfather and granddaughter was very evident. Both of their faces lit up with delight as they saw each other. There was no generation gap between them. They had clearly connected on a most profound level. Avi magnificently connected with everyone in his family and communities in a most meaningful manner.
+I believe Avi is looking from Gan Eden immensely pleased with our dedicating “Opportunity in Exile” in his memory. A special thank you is due to Avi’s wife and children - Ruth, Rebecca, Erez, Leah, Yosef, David, and Yoni - for facilitating the publication of this work. May Avi’s Neshama experience an Aliya in the merit of the wonderful Torah learning experiences which he generated and continues to generate.
+
+Perek 1
+
+Sefer Daniel's Puzzling Beginning
+
+Introduction to Sefer Daniel
It is very exciting to begin a deep dive into Sefer Daniel! In brief, Sefer Daniel begins a few years before Churban Bayit Rishon and ends approximately seventy years later, at the start of the building of Bayit Sheini. I believe that the theme of Sefer Daniel is that Torah life continues despite the exile and that in the end Jews who remain loyal to Torah emerge as triumphant. As we progress in the Sefer, we will further develop this assessment.
+We will be guided by (and often disagree with) the very interesting and somewhat out-of-the-box work on Sefer Daniel called “Daniel: Galut V’Hitgalut” (exile and revelation) written by the colorful Yeshivat Har Etzion Rosh Yeshiva Rav Yaakov Medan (the Sefer is archived at Har Etzion’s Virtual Beit Midrash).
+Introduction to the Beginning of Sefer Daniel
In order to appreciate the opening two Pesukim of Sefer Daniel, it is vitally important to grasp the chain of events leading up to Churban Bayit Rishon.
+1. 609 BCE – Babylonians put an end to the Assyrian Empire.
+2. 609 BCE – 598 BCE: the eleven-year reign of disappointing Yehoyakim ben Yoshiyahu Melech Yehuda. Yehoyakim was installed as king by the Egyptians.
+3. 605 BCE – Nevuchadnetzar succeeds his father as Babylonian Emperor.
+4. 604 BCE – Nevuchadnetzar seizes control of Eretz Yisrael.
+5. 601 BCE – Yehoyakim rebels against Nevuchadnetzar.
+6. 598 BCE – After three years of Yehoyakim’s rebellion, Nevudchadnetzar lays siege to Yerushalayim and captures Yehoyakim (and installs Yehoyachin, Yehoyakim’s son, as Melech Yehuda).
+Nevuchadnetzar and Year 3 of Yehoyakim’s Reign - The Problem
Daniel 1:1-2 teaches that Nevudchadnetzar laid siege to Yerushalayim and captured Yehoyakim in the third year of the latter’s reign. This assertion is especially troubling since Yirmiyahu 25:1 states that Nevuchadnetzar began his reign in the fourth year of Yehoyakim’s reign! This is a glaring Setirah/contradiction!!
+Solutions - Seder Olam/Rashi and the Pashtanim
Rashi to Pasuk 1 solves our problem based on the Seder Olam. Seder Olam/Rashi explain that the fourth year of Yehoyakim’s reign in Sefer Daniel 1:1 refers to the third year of Yehoyakim’s rebellion (which is the eleventh year of Yehoyakim’s reign and the eighth year of Nevuchadnetzar’s reign; i.e. 598 BCE).
+The Pashtanim, including Ibn Ezra (to Pasuk 1), Abarbanel, and Malbim (to Pasuk 1), offer a different approach. Rav Medan summarizes their approach: “the siege did, in fact, take place in the fourth (or third) year of Yehoyakim's reign, as stated at the beginning of Sefer Daniel. To resolve the discrepancy between the two accounts, they explain that the two sources use two different dating systems, each with its own start of the year”.
+Seder Olam/Rashi seems dramatically more compelling than the Pashatanim. It seems far-fetched, my TABC Talmidim note, to argue that different Sefarim in Tanach maintain different dating systems.
+Developing Seder Olam/Rashi:
Sefer Melachim’s description of Yehoyakim’s very turbulent eleven-year reign (Melachim II 23:31-37 and 24:1-7) sheds much light on the logic of Rashi’s approach. It teaches that the three years of Yehoyakim’s rebellion (601 BCE to 598 BCE) are in fact the only years he reigned as a sovereign king. During the first eight years he was a vassal king of Egypt (from 609 BCE to 604 BCE) and Bavel (from 604 BCE to 601 BCE) and not a sovereign king.
+Thus, the 598 BCE Babylonian siege on Yerushalayim may be described as occurring in the third year of the sovereign reign of Yehoyakim.
+Conclusion – Why Sefer Daniel Opens with an Obscure Date
No matter how you “slice” it, dating the Bablylonian siege and its subsequent first wave of the exile of the Jews (of which the very young Daniel is part) to the third year of Yehoyakim’s reign is highly unusual. The question is why Sefer Daniel presents this date in such an obscure manner.
+One possible answer is that Sefer Daniel begins with the very violent termination of the last spark of Jewish sovereign control over Eretz Yisrael which would cease for many centuries (until Hasmonean rule began in 165 BCE). Sefer Daniel teaches us how we can continue Torah life, meaning how we can retain control over our spiritual lives, even after we lose political control of our lives. While Jews in Sefer Daniel were no longer sovereign over Eretz Yisrael, Sefer Daniel teaches that every Jew must reign sovereign over his Neshama.
+Moreover, an obscure date requiring interpretation surely is brilliantly fitting for Sefer Daniel. More than once Sefer Daniel reveals the “Keitz”, the “ETA” of the Melech HaMashi’ach. However, these “Keitz dates” are obscure and require considerable interpretation.
+Finally, it is not just the Keitz that requires interpretation, in Sefer Daniel. The many dreams and visions in Sefer Daniel require authoritative interpretation. Interpretation is absolutely an essential element in Sefer Daniel. Thus, the obscure first Pasuk is the perfect opening for Sefer Daniel. The message might be that Jewish life in Galut hinges very much on the ongoing interpretation and application of Hashem’s word by the authoritative interpreters of each generation. This message is communicated by the fact that we cannot even understand the very first Pasuk of Sefer Daniel without authoritative interpretation.
+
+Surviving in the Darkness; Daniel's Ten Day Trial
+
+Poignant Questions from TABC Talmid Eitan Nissel
Sefer Daniel (1:9-15) records Daniel asking his Babylonian supervisor permission to restrict his diet to beans. It is most interesting that Daniel requested permission and did not act unilaterally, despite his having resolved to avoid eating Nevuchadnetzar’s food. Daniel asking permission teaches us to avoid unnecessary aggressive confrontations.
+Daniel’s supervisor is kind to him, due to Hashem’s intervention. Without the supervisor’s kindness, Daniel would not have remained loyal to Torah. This kindness is reminiscent of Heigai’s sympathy to Esther and Potiphar and the jail warden’s positive connection with Yosef. The lesson is that while adherence to Torah is very difficult in a foreign environment, Hashem influences events to make it possible for those willing to make the requisite effort.
+In response to his supervisor’s concern for severe consequences for Daniel’s potential poor appearance, Daniel proposes a ten-day trial to see how he appears after adhering to his very limited diet.
+Eitan Nissel, however, cogently asks what would have happened had Daniel’s appearance been subpar. Would Daniel have agreed to partake of Nevuchadnetzar’s food or would he still have refused to eat non-kosher? If the latter option is correct, would it have been Halachically appropriate for Daniel to cause his supervisor to risk his life? Moreover, if Daniel intends to refuse non-kosher food in any event, why does he suggest this ten-day trial period?
+Suggested Answers
This question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been answered by the classic Mefarshim, so we offer a number of ideas. One suggestion is that Daniel discerned Hashem’s intervention in the kind response from his supervisor and was therefore confident that Hashem would intervene and enable him to observe Kashrut without bringing harm to anyone. Daniel’s ten-day trial is his means of non-abrasively convincing his supervisor that all will be well despite his very limited diet.
+Another possibility is that Daniel was not confident of success. However, the ten-day trial would buy him time. In a difficult situation with no apparent solutions, often the best move is to stall for time. The hope is that the passage of time will bring about a solution.
+This is reminiscent of a story told of a Chassidic Rebbe being ordered by the local Poritz (Yiddish for Polish or Russian local landowner) to teach his dog to talk. The Poritz threatened to kill all the Jews in the area if the Rebbe did not succeed. The Rebbe asked for ten years to teach the dog, a wish granted by the Poritz. On the walk home, the Shamash (assistant) asked the Rebbe how he expected to teach the dog to talk. The Rebbe answered that in ten years maybe the Poritz will die, or maybe the dog will die, or maybe he will succeed in teaching the dog to talk!
+In Daniel’s case the delay paid off, and the problem was solved in a non-confrontational manner.
+Conclusion – Surviving in the Darkness
Rav Tzadok HaKohein of Lublin (Divrei Soferim 32) notes that Pesach and Purim represent two different paradigms of redemption. The Geulah from Mitzrayim celebrated on Pesach is a complete redemption. Once the Egyptian army was eliminated at the Yam Suf, we were completely liberated from Paroh. We were transformed, as we say at the Seder, “MeiAfeilah LeOrah,” from darkness to light. Purim, on the other hand, represents survival in darkness. It teaches us that we can survive in darkness (i.e. Galut) even when complete redemption is not forthcoming in the near future.
+Although we skirted the threat of Haman, at the end of Megillat Esther trouble still looms as the worrisome Achashveirosh remains in power. This is one reason according to the Gemara (Megilah 14a) that we do not recite Hallel on Purim.
+Similarly, in this episode Daniel does not completely solve the problem of Kashrut observance in Nevuchadnetzar’s palace. However, with a mix of courage and savvy, Daniel was able to quietly forge a path to Kashrut observance despite being in an alien environment.
+
+Daniel and His Friends Refuse to Eat Nevuchadnetzar's Food
+
+Malbim - Daniel Risks His Life
Malbim (Daniel 1:8) understands Daniel as risking his life by refusing to eat the king’s food. Nevudchadnetzer was, as typical of rulers of his age, ruthless and unrestrained. He would, on a dime, kill anyone who failed to fully comply with his orders and plans, as will become quite evident as we progress in Sefer Daniel.
+ Rambam vs. Tosafot
However, Daniel’s behavior seems to run counter to the rules of Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor. Rambam (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah) rules that we are forbidden to offer our lives for Mitzvot other than the three for which the Torah commands us. How do we reconcile Daniel’s behavior with the Rambam?
+Tosafot (Avoda Zara 27b s.v. Yachol) disagree with Rambam and permit voluntary Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor even for Aveirot for which we are not obligated to die, rather than violate them. Daniel’s stance seems to fit perfectly with Tosafot. However, why do Tosafot support their assertion from an incident quoted in the Yerushalmi instead of from Daniel?
+ Malbim
Malbim to Pasuk 8 explains that Daniel is not merely trying to avoid non-Kosher food. Instead, the food is from Avoda Zara offerings (Tikrovet Avoda Zara). Moreover, the Malbim understands that Nevuchadnetzar specifically wants Daniel to eat food that is part of an offering to Avoda Zara.
+Malbim makes an “Okimta,” assuming that this is the reason for Daniel risking his life. However, an approach that need not make such a leap might be more compelling.
+TABC Talmidim’s Alternative to the Malbim – Shimshy Gordon, Shimon Greengart and Ephraim Helfgot
Shimshy, Shimon, and Ephraim suggest that Daniel never placed his life in danger. He was persistent and intelligent but did not directly confront and disobey Nevuchadnetzar. Daniel expected to emerge strong and healthy from eating legumes. He merely had to convince his supervisor to conduct an experiment that would prove Daniel’s presumption.
+According to this suggestion, the lesson that emerges from this episode is that a Jew must be willing to remain steadfast in their Torah observance even if it is inconvenient and uncomfortable.
+However, we might argue that even a tiny sliver of non-compliance with Nevuchadnetzar and his underlings is fraught with danger. Daniel’s attempt to seek accommodation for his Jewish practice while in the Emperor’s palace involved high risk.
+ An Alternative to the Malbim – Rav Yaakov Medan
Rav Yaakov Medan argues that an examination of Daniel Perek 1 Pesukim 3-7 reveals Nevuchadnetzar’s goals. Nevuchadnetzar sought handsome, charismatic, and highly intelligent young Jewish boys. One might understand that the Babylonian emperor sought wise Jewish leaders who would help him manage his empire, as Yosef did for Paroh and Mordechai did for Achashveirosh.
+However, we suggest that Nevuchadnetzar had far grander goals. He was not merely looking to develop talented advisors for his empire. If that were his goal, there would be no need to demand that the boys be handsome and descendants of the royal line. There would have been no need for him to change their names and have them eat the royal food.
+Instead, he sought to bring these boys to his home at an impressionable age to dramatically change their cultural identities. Nevuchadneztar did not attempt to acculturate the Jewish boys but rather to transform them from Jews to Babylonians. Nevuchadneztar figured that young boys would not be able to withstand the pressure to partake of the most exquisite food in the Babylonian empire and that they would quickly succumb to the efforts to assimilate them.
+The plan would not end there. Nevuchadnetzar chose handsome and blemish-free young men because they would be able to become leaders of the Jewish people subsequently. Their royal lineage would serve to enhance their credibility as leaders of the Jews. Nevuchadneztar was hoping that these assimilated young Jews would be accepted as leaders of the Jewish people and serve as role models for assimilation into Babylonian society.
+Nevuchadneztar hoped they would convince the Jews, now under Babylonian political control, to adopt Babylonian culture and lifestyle. He thought that the young leaders would be especially successful in reaching out to the younger generation to convince them to abandon the ways of their parents. Once the Jews assimilated, they would serve as loyal servants to Nevuchadneztar and his descendants.
+Daniel’s Resistance
Daniel, despite his youth, grasped the plan and its far-reaching consequences. The future of the Jewish people was at stake, for if the young leaders of the Jews set a poor example to their brethren and young counterparts, the Jews would assimilate and cease being Jews. Daniel and his friends acted correctly, for the future of our people was at grave risk.
+Preserving Jewish identity might be why Mordechai refused to bow to Haman, an issue which has puzzled many of the commentaries to the Megillah. Mordechai recognized that the Jewish people in the Persian Empire were assimilating (Megillah 12a famously records that we enjoyed Achashveirosh’s extreme parties). If Mordechai, a great leader of his people, were to acculturate and bow to Haman, then the Jews would soon assimilate into Persian society and cease identifying as Jews. Although refusing to bow to Haman placed our people at high risk, bowing to Haman would have been a nail in the coffin of our people.
+Eating serves as a powerful bonding experience, as is evident from Bereishit 26:26-30 and 31:43-46. Shemot 34:15-16 and Bemidbar 24:1-3 describe a shared meal with idolaters as a prelude to our worshipping Avoda Zara.
+ Avoda Zara 36a
Avodah Zarah 36a states that Daniel made the Gezeira forbidding us to eat even kosher wine and oil prepared by a non-Jew. According to this Gemara, it is also possible that Nevuchadnetzar prepared kosher food for Daniel, and he nevertheless refused it.
+Daniel’s refusal to eat Nevuchadnetzar’s food was critical for the future of our People. Right at the start of the Jewish presence in Bavel, Daniel declared that we would remain Jewish even under Babylonian dominion. Daniel set an example of the sacrifice we must be willing to make to resist the prevailing culture and retain our Jewish identity.
+Interestingly, TABC Talmid Menachem Kravetz suggests that once Daniel established that he would maintain his Jewish identity in Nevuchadnetzar’s palace even at very high cost, Daniel was comfortable serving as an advisor to the Babylonian emperor. He no longer feared that this would cause him to lose his Jewish identity.
+Conclusion
Sefer Daniel opens with an allusion to rebellion against Bavel. Daniel, following the example set by Yosef resisting Eishet Potiphar, rebels against Nevuchadnetzar to retain his Jewish cultural independence.
+The major theme of Sefer Daniel is that absent willingness to engage in dramatic Mesirat Nefesh (sacrifices), Jews will assimilate in exile. Daniel would have severely jeopardized the Jewish future had he been unwilling to risk their lives to refrain from eating non-kosher food.
+The same applies to every generation. Had the Hasmoneans not made extraordinary sacrifices to resist Antiochus’ program of Hellenizing our ancestors, Torah observance might not have survived. Those Jews who did not make extraordinary sacrifices to refrain from Chillul Shabbat during the time (until the 1950s) when the United States ran on a six-day workweek, most often did not have Jewish grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
+Each generation has its own unique Nisayon (test or trial). For our generation, our Nisayon is not Shabbat or Kashrut, which are relatively easy to observe in today’s multicultural society. Yeshiva tuition and Aliya are among the great contemporary Nisayonot. If we step up to the challenge and are willing to make extraordinary sacrifices like Daniel, we will join the long chain of Jews who have heroically preserved the Jewish heritage. In doing so, we will be, with God’s help, blessed with Jewish grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
+
+Perspectives on Daniel's Extraordinary Success
+
+Daniel Perek 1 Pesukim 15-21 describe Daniel’s (and Chananiah’s, Mishael’s, and Azaria’s) extraordinary success in Nevuchadnetzar’s court. Interestingly, Daniel Perek 2 Pasuk 49 records Daniel encouraging Nevuchadnetzar to appoint Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaria to senior positions in Nevuchadnetzar’s administration.
+Embracing a Role in Nevuchadnetzar’s Administration
It seems that Daniel embraces a role in Nevuchadnetzar’s administration. Otherwise, why does Daniel seek to advance his friends? One similarly gets the impression that Mordechai is pleased with his role as Mishneh LaMelech to Achashveirosh (and most of the Sanhedrin approves, although a minority voices opposition). Yosef also seems content with his appointment as Mishneh L’Melech of Mitzrayim.
+Why does Daniel refuse to eat Nevuchadnetzar’s food (even if it is kosher!) on the one hand, but on the other hand embraces serving in Nevuchadnetzar’s administration?
+Advocating for His People
TABC Talmidim responded that while refraining from the Babylonian food is critical to preserving Jewish identity; Jews must occupy high-level government positions to assure the safety of the Jews. Jews throughout the centuries of exile understood that our enemies will tolerate us if they realize they need us. Daniel and his friends proved indispensable to Nevuchadnetzar, much as Mordechai did to Achashveirosh, and Yosef did to Paroh. In these high-level positions, leading Jews can advocate for their people.
+Bereishit 47:1-6, with Rashi to Pasuk 2, teaches that Yosef does not want his brothers to serve in Paroh’s administration. What accounts for the difference? Several TABC Talmidim suggest that Yosef feared his overloading Paroh’s administration with Jews. Too many Jews in Paroh��s government, he feared, would trigger mass hatred for the Jews. TABC Talmidim Shimshy Gordon, Elisha Markovitz, Akiva Prager and Yitzi Weis note that Yosef wanted them to avoid service in the Egyptian military. The Talmidim explain: “When you join the military, they can be negatively influenced. They also do not have a real position of power where they can help Am Yisrael in Egypt. Soldiers are expected to follow orders”.
+Yirmiyahu HaNavi’s Instructions to Exiled Jews
Daniel’s zeal to join the Babylonian administration is fueled by critical divine instructions Yirmiyahu HaNavi (29:4-7) sends to the Jews who were very recently exiled to Bavel (including Daniel!). Yirmiyahu tells us to further the welfare of the community to which we are exiled and pray to Hashem for its stability, for in its peace we will find peace.
+Yimrmiyahu HaNavi communicates a foundational Hashkafa message. It is both the prudent and proper Torah way for us to serve as contributing members to the broader society. Avraham Avinu presents himself to the Bnei Cheit (Bereishit 23:4), as both a stranger and resident amongst them.
+On the one hand, we are strangers. Our food, for example, differs from the broader society. We are willing to make even the ultimate sacrifice to retain our unadulterated commitment to Torah, as exemplified by Daniel. On the other hand, we are very much part of the broader community. Good citizenship, such as paying taxes in full compliance with the laws and driving like a gentleman, are amongst the ways we follow the stellar example of Avraham Avinu. Daniel and his friends' service in Nevuchadnetzar’s government is very much in keeping with the mandate set forth in Yirmiyahu’s letter.
+It is a very delicate balance we must strike – on the one hand maintaining “spiritual independence”, yet on the other hand being a contributing member to the society in which we reside. These Torah values drive Daniel’s choices in Nevuchadnetzar’s palace.
+Daniel’s Extraordinary Success
Daniel Perek 1 records that Nevuchadnetzar finds Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaria ten times as capable and intelligent than their Babylonian counterparts. This success is undoubtedly an extraordinary Neis.
+The parallels to Yosef and Mordechai are obvious and stark. The similarities to Jewish life today are also stark.
+The percentage of Jewish Nobel Prize winners (especially in the sciences and economics) is wildly disproportionate to our numbers, and Israel’s scientific and technological advances are wildly disproportionate to its numbers. To my mind, the religious explanation is necessary to complement the “secular” explanations that appear in works such as “Start-Up Nation”. Common sense points to a Hidden Hand manipulating the situation.
+Why does Hashem intervene and orchestrate this? We suggest a number of answers.
+Or LaGoyim
The Tanach mandates our service to the world. Bereishit 12:2 states that we will bring Bracha to the world. Yishayahu HaNavi notes no less than three times (42:6, 49:6, and 60:3) our mandate to serve as an Or LaGoyim, light to the nations. As TABC Talmid Elan Agus notes, we represent Hashem and serve as His witnesses, as stated in Yishayahu 43:10. The success of the nation that successfully represents Hashem brings credit and positive recognition of Him.
+Daniel’s refusal to partake of palace fare establishes himself as a proper representative of Hashem. This refusal makes him worthy of high achievement, which projects awareness of Hashem.
+Hashem’s Hand Still Stretched Out to Us to Help Us
Our dazzling success is especially necessary in Galut. Chagiga 5b records that our enemies claim we are a nation abandoned by Hashem. Our extraordinary success dispels this notion. Rav Soloveitchik notes in his Kol Dodi Dofeik that Israel’s achievements debunk the strain in certain non-Jewish theologies that Jewish suffering proves God has abandoned them.
+Our very survival in the very hostile Galut, as Israel’s survival in a sea of seething hatred, is testimony to Hashem’s sustaining our people. Yoma 69b observes that absent Hashem’s intervention, we could not survive amongst the nations. Rav Yaakov Emden (in the introduction to his Siddur) writes that our survival in the Galut is a greater miracle than any other miracle recorded in the Tanach, including Keri’at Yam Suf.
+Conclusion
Facing extremely severe disappointments at the beginning of the Bayit Sheini era, Chagai HaNavi (Perek 2) communicates the following encouraging words from Hashem - “I remain with you”.
+TABC Talmid Levi Langer notes that Daniel’s extraordinary success communicates that even at our low point of Nevuchadnetzar conquering Yerushalayim (with which Sefer Daniel begins), Hashem is very much with us and has not abandoned us. Daniel’s incredible success demonstrates the Pasuk (Vayikra 26:44), that even in our exile Hashem remains with us.
+
+Perek 2
+
+Is Daniel a Navi?
+
+Abarbanel vs. the Rambam
Abarbanel (Ma’ayan 3 Tamar 1) insists, at considerable length, that Daniel is a Navi. He vigorously disputes the Rambam who argues (Moreh Nevuchim 2:45) that Daniel is blessed with Ru’ach HaKodesh but is not on the level of a Navi.
+Chazal
Megilla 3a seems to support the Rambam, as it states that Daniel is not a Navi. Megillah 14a states that there were 48 Nevi’im and 7 Nevi’ot. Rashi thereupon (the end of s.v. Nevu’ah Shehutzrechu L’Dorot) writes that the Gemara believes that Daniel is not a Navi.
+Perek 2 of Sefer Daniel
Chazal’s view seems incompatible with Perek 2 of Sefer Daniel. How else could Daniel discover Nevuchadnetzar’s dream? Daniel (in Pasuk 28) states that Hashem revealed the dream to him. Pasuk 19 reports that Hashem revealed the secret to Daniel in a night vision. TABC Talmid Shimmy Greengart notes the comparison to Bemidbar 12:6, which describes Nevi’im other than Moshe Rabbeinu receiving their prophecy in a dream. Moreover, Daniel 1:17 states that, in addition to mastering a variety of languages and disciplines, Daniel grasps all visions and dreams. Ibn Ezra to this Pasuk understands this phrase to mean that Daniel is a Navi.
+A Resolution to the Debate
How might we explain the Gemara? A comparison with Yosef’s interpreting dreams might prove helpful (Rashi to Megillah 14a states that Yosef is not listed as a Navi).
+Yosef and Daniel are not defined as Nevi’im since they differ from classic Nevi’im. TABC Talmid Levi Langer observes that the Pesukim do not state that Hashem appeared either to Yosef or Daniel. Rashi (Megillah 3a D’Inhu Nevi’im) explains that Daniel’s message from Hashem is not directed to Am Yisrael, as are those of a Navi. The same may be said regarding Yosef. Shimmy Greengart points out that Devarim 18:15 describes a Navi that emerges amongst Am Yisrael to communicate Hashem’s word to them. Thus, formally speaking, we do not classify Yosef and Daniel as Nevi’im.
+TABC Talmid Tzvi Naor cogently observes that although Daniel and Yosef might not meet the formal criteria of a Navi they undoubtedly have a special level of intuition and smarts that can only be directly from Hashem.
+Although Yosef and Daniel are not “official” Nevi’im, Hashem undoubtedly communicates with, or at the very least strongly influences, them. Thus, the debate as to whether we categorize Daniel as a Navi is purely academic. The bottom line is: Hashem communicates His messages to Daniel and Yosef.
+ Conclusion
Our crucial point is that despite being in Galut, and in spite of his position in a thoroughly alien environment, Daniel receives communications from Hashem. The critical message is that Hashem has not abandoned His people. Hashem is not like a “Master who has sold His slave,” as many Jews expressed after their exile to Bavel (Yechezkeil Perek 20 and Sanhedrin 105a). We remain His nation, and the Torah remains in full force. The method of His communication differs from that which occurred when we were in Eretz Yisrael with the Beit HaMikdash, but our relationship with Hashem remains intact and in full force.
+Postscript
Tragically, after the Holocaust, many Jews felt like a slave sold by his master. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, in his Kol Dodi Dofeik, writes that the miracles of Israel’s establishment dispel this notion. Hashem demonstrates that He remains with His nation and that His people are expected to maintain full fidelity and complete commitment to Him and His Torah. The Brit between Hashem and Am Yisrael remains in full effect.
+Concerning modern-day communication from Hashem, the never-ending discovery of Talmudic precedents for every new Halachic issue is one manner in which Hashem continues to communicate with us. The fact that the Gemara provides a clear basis to rule upon all modern-day challenges, such as in vitro fertilization, opening refrigerators on Shabbat, electric shavers, and Kohanim traveling on an airplane, clearly indicates Hashem’s involvement in the composition of the Gemara.
+
+Sefer Daniel's Abrupt Change to Aramaic
+
+Why Aramaic?
One of the striking features of Sefer Daniel (and Sefer Ezra) is that a large portion of it is written in Aramaic. What is the advantage of writing most of Perek 2 in Aramaic? Why then is Perek 1 written in Hebrew? Why does Perek 2 begin in Hebrew? Moreover, why in Perek 8 does Sefer Daniel return to Hebrew?
+Some Aramaic Basics
Here is a bit of background (from Da’at Mikra) regarding Aramaic to help us develop some answers. Aramaic emerged as the lingua franca for international communication beginning with the rise of the Assyrian Empire. The Assyrians adopted Aramaic as their second official language in the 740’s BCE. Approximately 500 BCE is when Darius made Aramaic the second official language of Persia. Thus, we are not surprised to find Aramaic spoken in Nevuchadnetzar’s court instead of a native Babylonian language such as Akkadian.
+Before Churban Bayit Rishon, our ancestors in Judea spoke Hebrew. During the siege of Yerushalayim, the Assyrian Ravshakeh addressed Jewish commoners in Hebrew, so they could understand his demeaning words (Melachim II 18:28). Jewish leaders asked him to speak Aramaic so that commoners would not comprehend his words (ad. loc. Pesukim 26).
+It seems reasonable to assume that Jews continued to speak Hebrew until their exile. Daniel likely did not know Aramaic when he was exiled to Babylon.
+Abarbanel’s Explanation
Abarbanel (in the introduction to his commentary to Sefer Daniel “Mayanei HaYeshu’a”) explains that the beginning of Sefer Daniel is written in Hebrew since it is written to his people Am Yisrael. Daniel also records the Malach’s communications (beginning in Perek 8) in Hebrew since it is the language that Hashem spoke to Adam HaRishon, the Avot, Moshe Rabbeinu, and our Nevi’im.
+However, continues Abarbanel, Daniel records the communications and interactions with the Babylonian leadership in Aramaic, the language of these dealings. Abarbanel explains that Daniel was concerned that if he translated the conversations to Hebrew then inaccuracies would inevitably creep in.
+Questions on the Abarbanel
One may then ask why does the Torah not record Yaakov Avinu’s talks with Lavan and Moshe Rabbeinu’s communications with Paroh in the language in which they presumably occurred, Aramaic and Egyptian respectively? One might respond that the Chumash was dictated word by word from Hashem and thus there is no fear of imprecise translation. However, why then are the communications which are recorded in the Nevi’im, such as Ehud’s talks with Eglon Melech Mo’av or Yiftach’s communications with Melech Amon, not presented in their original language? One might respond that Sefer Daniel, which is part of Ketuvim, involves less immediate divine impact than the words of Nevi’im and therefore has a greater risk of inaccuracy. Alternatively, Sefer Daniel was written in a time of Galut during which Daniel needed to act in a more natural manner and reduce his reliance upon Hashem’s intervention.
+The question then arises as to why Daniel in Perek 7 records his first communication with the Malach in Aramaic. Abarbanel answers that it is written in Aramaic since the Malach delivered this communication while the Babylonian Empire remained intact. The Malach’s words recorded in Hebrew in Perek 8, although presented in the third (and last) year of the Babylonian ruler Belshatzar, were communicated as the Babylonian rule was on the verge of ending.
+It seems that Abarbanel shifts his explanation for Sefer Daniel’s use of Aramaic. Instead of its aim being to accurately portray the occurrences, the idea is to convey a mood of Babylonian dominance.
+Abarbanel’s approach, however, does not explain why Daniel Perek 6 records Daniel’s interactions with King Darius the Mede in Aramaic.
+Da’at Mikra’s Approach
Da’at Mikra interestingly suggests that the Aramaic sections of Sefer Daniel are intended to impact non-Jews as well as Jews. Just as Yirmiyahu 10:11 states a message to be delivered to non-Jews in Aramaic, so too Daniel’s messages are universal in nature and thus are expressed in Aramaic, the lingua franca.
+One could question this suggestion, as there are many lessons in the Torah that apply to all of humanity, such as the first eleven chapters of Sefer Bereishit, which are not written in Aramaic. In addition, unlike Yirmiyahu 10:11, there is no divine instruction to direct the messages of Sefer Daniel to the nations of the world.
+A New Suggestion from TABC Talmidim
A number of TABC Talmidim including Jacob Becker, Zachary Becker, Ezra Lebowitz, and Yaakov Suldan note that to properly learn Tanach it is insufficient to merely study it. One must make a complete immersion including a full emotional engagement. Accordingly, beginning the Sefer in Hebrew offers the view of a Hebrew-speaking Jewish young man freshly exiled from Yehuda to Bavel. He speaks, thinks, and writes in Hebrew.
+However, as he becomes more acculturated, he becomes comfortable in Aramaic. Of course, Daniel does not assimilate since he resolutely avoids eating Nevuchadnetzar’s food as we learned in Perek 1. However, Daniel at the beginning of Perek 2, which according to Rashi occurred in the thirteenth year after Daniel arrived in Bavel, has become proficient in Aramaic and in the ways of the Babylonian royal court. Daniel handles himself with skill and aplomb in extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Daniel, by introducing the readers to the story in Hebrew and seamlessly transitioning to Aramaic, conveys his comfort, and competence, in the Babylonian royal court. Daniel’s interactions with Darius the Mede of Perek 6 is also presented in Aramaic to express the ease of Daniel’s move from the Babylonian royalty to Darius.
+In Perek 8, however, Babylonian hegemony is coming to an end as the seventy years of exile set forth by Yirmiyahu HaNavi have been completed. Daniel shifts back into Hebrew as we transition from being entrenched in Galut to redirecting ourselves to our return to Eretz Yisrael.
+Conclusion
We do not just learn about Daniel; we walk alongside Daniel! We accompany him throughout his darkest moments sharing his deep fears and rejoicing with him in his moments of triumph. Part of the secret of Jewish continuity is to fully connect with our role models of our glorious past. The shifting of Sefer Daniel from Hebrew to Aramaic and then back to Hebrew helps us achieve exactly this lofty but crucial Torah goal.
+
+Unpacking Nevuchadnetzar's First Dream
+
+Let us attempt to peel back the many layers of meaning of Nevuchadneztar’s first dream (Daniel Perek 2) by tackling six questions regarding this most remarkable event.
+Question #1 - Why does Hashem send the message of the Arba Malchuyot to Nevuchadnetzar?
Yirmiyahu Perek 27 Pesukim 1-12 helps us discover an explanation. Yirmiyahu Hanavi addresses an international convention of the region’s kings assembled in Jerusalem to coordinate a rebellion against Nevuchadnetzar. Yirmiyahu urges this distinguished assembly to refrain.
+Pasuk 6 of this Perek encapsulates this central message. Yirmiyahu cites Hashem referring to Nevuchadnetzar as “His servant.” Yirmiyahu’s terminology does not reflect Nevuchadnetzar’s piety. He was, tragically, a most impious individual. Instead, it means that this mighty emperor is merely Hashem’s pawn executing His will.
+TABC Talmidim Ezra Baron, Eitan Leitner, and Elisha Markovitz beautifully explain the relevance of this idea to Nevuchadnetzar’s dream: “The clear message is that Hashem is telling/reminding Nebuchadnezzar that all the greatness he has achieved exists only because of the will of Hashem. We also suggest that Daniel interpreting the dream reminds Nevuchadnetzar that although he is the most powerful king, the Jewish people are above him when it comes to what truly matters: spirituality. Not being able to understand his dream without the help of a Jewish sage and being reminded that Hashem is the true "King of kings", Nebuchadnezzar is given a sharp reminder to stay humble”.
+Daniel 2:37 and 2:47 perfectly express this message. In Pasuk 37 Daniel tells Nevuchadnetzar that Hashem is the One who bestowed him with power. In the most dramatic moment of the Perek, in Pasuk 47 Nevuchadnetzar, in a rare moment of clarity, recognizes Hashem as the real Authority.
+Nevuchadnetzar and his mighty empire are long gone. How does Daniel Perek 2 impact us? Daniel refers to Nevuchadnetzar in 2:37 as “the king of kings”.
+While Nevuchadnetzar perceives himself as the king of kings, we recognize that this is an illusion. Hashem is the King of kings. Nevuchadnetzar and those like him are a passing phenomenon. However, Hashem and His Kingdom last forever. Jews who live their lives in complete conformity with Hashem’s Torah and nobly serve bearers of the divine message have tuned and plugged into eternity, Chayei Olam. Daniel 12:2 introduces the term “Chayei Olam”, noting that Torah loyalists are endowed with Chayei Olam unlike those who pursue temporary success such as Nevuchadnetzar. Therefore, if there is an unavoidable clash between Hashem’s will and Nevudchadneztar’s will, as in Perek 1 and again in Perek 3, Hashem’s Will prevails.
+This attitude helped many Jews retain a Jewish identity even in the most oppressive of atmospheres, such as the former Soviet Union. It bolsters the faith of people like my grandfather who remained a Shomer Shabbat in the early twentieth-century United States when workers were routinely warned “if you do not come in on Saturday, do not come in on Monday”). It continues to provide succor and support to people who remain faithful to Torah today even under trying circumstances.
+Question #2 - The Timing of the Dream
Daniel 2:1 states that the dream occurred in the second year of Nevuchadnetzar’s rule. This Pasuk is highly problematic in light of Melachim II 24:12 which says that Galut Yehoyachin – the first exile of the Jews – occurred in the eighth year of Nevuchadnetzar’s reign. Thus, Daniel was not yet exiled to Bavel in the second year of Nevuchadnetzar’s reign!
+Rashi, once again quoting the Midrash known as Seder Olam, solves this problem by explaining that Daniel 2:1 refers to the second year since Nevuchadnetzar destroyed the Beit HaMikdash. Rashi’s explanation fits beautifully with our theme. At a time when Nevuchadnetzar revels in his conquest of the Beit HaMikdash, a feat of which even the mighty Assyrian Emperor Sancheiriv was incapable, he (and we) urgently needs a reminder that he has NOT conquered Hashem.
+Question #3 - Why Did Hashem Make Nevuchadnetzar Forget His Dream?
As a practical matter, it is a means to prove Daniel’s authenticity. On a spiritual level, it is humbling for Nevuchadneztar to depend on Daniel to understand the message of the dream. This is reminiscent of Hashem not conveying the news of the impending Churban Shilo directly to Eili HaKohen, but indirectly through Shmuel, due to the spiritual deficiencies of Eili and his sons. It is also humbling (and perhaps even humiliating) to Eili to depend on Shmu’el to communicate the message.
+Question #4 – Why do we Echo Daniel’s Tefillah Every Evening?
Pasuk 21 presents Daniel’s Tefillah of gratitude to Hashem. Our recital at Arvit/Maariv – U’Machalif et HaZemanim Umesader et HaKochavim Borei Yom VaLayla – is based on Daniel’s Tefillah. This Tefillah contrasts Hashem with the temporal “rulers” of the universe (i.e., the sun, the moon, and the stars). This idea perfectly fits with the theme of the Perek. Hashem ruling the changing sky reflects that Hashem is the supreme ruler of both temporal and celestial powers. Just as the sun and the moon are passing rulers, so too even the most potent flesh and blood monarchs eventually fade away.
+Question #5 – Why is Nevuchadnetzar/Babylonian Empire Portrayed as Gold?
Our Talmidim asked why the Babylonian Empire is portrayed as gold, in contrast to the succeeding empires. The Persian Empire was more extensive and less brutal. Alexander the Great’s empire was more substantial and more cultured.
+I think we should consider the recurring theme in Rashi of respect shown even to evil kings such as Paroh and Achav (please see Rashi to Bereishit 48:2 s.v. Vayitchazeik Yisrael) as an answer. Presenting Nevuchadnetzar and his empire as gold expresses respect to Nevuchadnetzar even at a time when he is being rebuked. This exhibition of respect may significantly contribute to his positive reception to the message (at least at first).
+TABC Talmid Shimon Greengart adds: “I think that the value of the metal is connected to the centralization of the government. The Persian Empire was much less centralized than the Babylonian Empire. Because it was bigger, Persia needed to have provincial governors administer its empire. The smaller Babylonian Empire was ruled much more directly by the king. Compare the role of the governor of Judea in the story of Jesus to the role of the emperor. Finally, the clay dividing the iron shows that the strong empire is also divided, as interpreted by Daniel.
+That's not to say that Daniel isn't flattering Nevuchadnetzar. He is. Daniel describes the silver kingdom that will replace the Babylonians as inferior in every way. That is flattery.
+In addition, while silver is less valuable than gold, it is also much stronger. Pure gold is so soft you can mold it in your hands at room temperature. Gold signifies that later kingdoms are bigger and stronger; Daniel does not express this to Nevuchadnetzar, because his head enjoys its attachment to his neck. In fact, each later kingdom is represented by stronger materials. Bronze, unlike silver, is used in weapons, while the first people to discover how to smelt iron, easily conquered Egypt. Daniel does mention the strength of the iron empire in Pasuk 40.
+Question #6 – Why do Chazal (Megilla 15a) identify Hatach with Daniel?
Hatach serves as the intermediary between Mordechai and Esther in Perek 4 of Megillat Esther. Mordechai in this Perek tries to convince Esther to break the law and enter Achashveirosh’s throne room without permission, on behalf of our People.
+Chazal, in this instance, might be understood non-literally. Daniel served Nevuchadnetzar from Galut Yehoyachin (597 BCE) until the first year of Koresh/Cyrus (539 BCE), and the events recorded in Esther Perek 4 (arguably) occur in year 484 BCE. Barring an overt miracle from Hashem, it is highly unlikely Daniel served in Achashveirosh’s court.
+What profound message do Chazal communicate by introducing Daniel into Megillat Esther, especially into the intense exchange between Mordechai and Esther that Megillat Esther Perek 4 records?
+TABC Talmid Eitan Mermelstein explains, “Chazal, I believe, may have been comparing the situation of Daniel with the situation of Esther. Both are forced to confront a mighty non-Jewish emperor and fight for Judaism despite the bodily harm which might result. It is also possible that Chazal meant that the stellar example set by Daniel, just like Hatach, played a key role in this conversation and helped convince Esther that she needed to confront the king despite the great risk to her life”.
+The message of Daniel Perek 2 is especially relevant to Esther. Kings, even mighty emperors, come and go. They are, in the words of Daniel 12:2, “Chayei Sha’ah”, temporary. Only Hashem and Torah are eternal, “Chayei Olam.” Our task is to look beyond the temporal and “plug into” eternity. When there is an unavoidable clash between Torah and an earthly ruler, there is no contest. Daniel teaches us that Torah must prevail; otherwise, we fade into oblivion.
+Daniel’s powerful example motivated Esther to rise to the occasion in her generation. Had Daniel and Esther failed to act heroically, they would have been long forgotten. Their heroic acts of defiance elevated them both from the temporal to serving as role models to Am Yisrael, the eternal nation, for eternity.
+TABC Talmid Noam Barenholtz adds, “Hatach is synonymous with Daniel in the eyes of Chazal because Daniel is a symbol of Jewish continuity in exile. Having the same person there from the beginning of the Galut to the end, covering all major events, and spanning two empires, shows that while empires rise and fall, Hashem continues to protect Am Yisrael. Not only that, but the very same Jews remain in the same positions while the world is changing around them”.
+Conclusion – A Comforting Message to Am Yisrael
The message of the Arba Malchuyot eventually being succeeded by the Malchut Hashem is, most importantly, a message of hope to Am Yisrael. As noted by TABC Talmidim Yis Kaminetzky and Yehuda Wiener, we are strengthened by the fact that eventually our subjugation will end and that in the end we will survive. It is said that Jews being led to the Nazi gas chambers would proclaim “Mir Zennen Ibberleben”, we will outlive them. Daniel Perek 2 teaches us that though the arc of history might be long it bends in the direction of the triumph of Hashem and His nation who, like Daniel, remains steadfast in its complete commitment to Him and His Torah.
+
+Identifying the Arba Malchuyot of Daniel Perek 2
+
+Daniel Perek 2 famously presents Nevuchadneztar's dream of the four Malchuyot that will dominate the world but will eventually be supplanted by the Malchut Hashem represented and embodied by Am Yisrael. These four empires are a recurring theme in Torah commentary with numerous events interpreted in light of the Arba Malchuyot. These include the four rivers of Gan Eden, the four Mesopotamian kings with whom Avraham Avinu battles, the four creatures split at the Berit Bein HaBetarim, and the four formulations (Leshonot) of Geulah at the beginning of Parashat VaEira.
+Identifying the Four Empires
Despite their ubiquity in Jewish Thought, it is far from clear as to the identity of the last three of the kingdoms. Of the five images in Nevuchadneztar's dream, only two are evident as to what they refer.
+1. Pesukim 37 and 38 explain that the gold head refers to Nevuchadnetzar and the Babylonian Empire he heads.
+2. Pesukim 44 and 45 explain how the stone that breaks the statue refers to the Malchut Hashem that will destroy the four kingdoms and is Eternal.
+3. However, the Pesukim do not identify the symbolism of the silver, bronze, and mixture of iron and clay portions of the statue other than to say they represent successive empires. There is considerable discussion as to which empires they refer.
+1. Rashi to Pesukim 39 and 44 thinks the kingdoms are Persia, Greece, and Rome/Christianity.
+2. Ibn Ezra, in the middle of his comments to Pasuk 39, thinks the fourth kingdom is Islam (the third one is Greece/Rome).
+References to the Arba Malchuyot in our Zemirot
Generally speaking, these are the accepted understandings. Yishma'el continues, and Christianity is typically understood as the successor to Rome (for example, the Vatican is located in Rome).
+This idea is even reflected in our Zemirot: Carefully examine Ma'oz Tzur. While the hints to Rome/Christianity are heavily veiled to avoid persecution, the references to the four Malchuyot, with Rome/Christianity being the fourth Malchut, are reasonably apparent to the discerning eye.
+Similar themes appear in the song for Shabbat afternoon Baruch Hashem Yom Yom.
+TABC Talmidim Debate whether the Roman Empire Continues in Some Form Today
TABC Talmid Noam Barenholtz opines:
+The kingdoms the Rishonim describe do not continue until today. The Roman Empire is long gone, and there is no Caliphate, while many Arab countries are failing due to the Arab Spring and other issues. And no matter how much the Roman Empire influenced Europe, Europe was certainly no Roman Empire. It developed its own legal system and culture that took inspiration from, and saw itself as continuing the legacy of, the Roman Empire, but was very different.
+The political center shifted from the Mediterranean to Central and Western Europe, places that had formerly been the seats of the enemies of the Romans; the Pope did not have the absolute power that the emperors enjoyed and had to balance his desire for power with other kings and emperors, especially the Holy Roman Emperor; feudalism and serfdom, which previously had never, or barely ever, existed, became the new normal. If we say that the cultural legacies of Christianity and the Roman Empire are what allow us to say it lives on, then we have a pretty significant asymmetry between the first three kingdoms and the last. The first three were defined by their political power, their ability to conquer and control large amounts of land. Rome, however, has no political power, despite its continued cultural legacy (although many would say even that has been reduced in recent decades).
+TABC Talmid Yehuda Mazin responds:
I think a variation on the classical approach is the most accurate. The first kingdom, of course, is Babylon, the second is Persia-Media, the third is the Greeks, and the fourth is Rome. However, I think we also need to count their derivative nations and worlds. Babylon was consumed mainly by Persia-Media, but Persia continues to this day. Iran and other sections of the Middle East still hold their Persian identity close at heart.
+Similarly, the Greeks broke down into multiple regions. However, Macedonian and Greek identities still exist today, and descendants of the Seleucid and Ptolemaic nations still exist today across the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, Rome broke up into Byzantium (the Iron) and Rome (the clay). While the city of Rome fell, the story of the past 2000 years of history has been heavily influenced by Christianity (the extension of Rome), and nations are continually trying to recreate themselves as the New Roman Empire. One need look no farther than Mussolini's actions or the architecture of Washington DC to see this.
+Furthermore, Byzantium is also not dead. Both the Ottoman Empire and Russia saw themselves as the successors to the Byzantines (each with varying degrees of truth behind them). The Ottomans then swallowed up most of what remained of any Seleucid or Ptolemaic identities, while the European powers (and now their American successors) continue to influence the Middle East. While the fourth kingdom is certainly Rome, it need not be that kingdoms exist exclusively.
+Abarbanel and Malbim – Christianity and Islam
The Abarbanel and Malbim offer a variation on Rashi and Ibn Ezra’s approach which is similar to the approach set forth by Yehuda Mazin. Abarbanel and Malbim understand Pesukim 40 and 41 as saying that at first the fourth kingdom is quite strong, which represents the Roman Empire at its height. However, it branches into its legs, which represent Islam and Christianity.
+They note that the dream does not set forth which branch is stronger as these two religious groups vie for dominance. One group will flourish while the other will languish, and that will vary with time. Contemporary fundamentalist Islamic attacks against Western targets may be seen as a continuation of this struggle.
+Rav Yaakov Medan's Out of the Box Approach #1 – Four Axis Powers
Rav Yaakov Medan suggests that the Arba Malchuyot refer to the four axis powers of World War One, which was followed by the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Balfour Declaration facilitated the creation of Medinat Yisrael. Hashem orchestrated the fall of the four axis powers, which led to the eventual establishment of Medinat Yisrael.
+TABC Talmidim Reaction to Rav Medan
Boaz Kapitanker: While I enjoy the symbolism of this interpretation, I do not think it is entirely accurate, as the dream Hashem gave Nebuchadnezzar must have been relevant to him. Additionally, for the most part, the four axis powers were reasonably similar in their levels of power and were not world powers or significant kingdoms.
+Ving Levy - the Tanach is not prophesying the four axis powers. However, the four axis powers might reflect the Arba Malchuyot.
+TABC Talmid Eitan Mermelstein notes that Rav Medan's approach is lacking because it seems from Perek 2 that the kingdoms will not coexist.
+Rav Yaakov Medan's Out of the Box Approach #2 – The Stone Represents the Hasmoneans
Chagai 2:6-7 (see Rashi and Radak's comments) may be understood as prophesying the unfolding of a great era beginning with the Hasmonean defeat of the Syrian-Greeks. There was genuine Messianic potential in the Hasmonean era that unfortunately unraveled due to the spiritual downfall of the subsequent generations of Hasmonean leaders.
+Accordingly, Nevuchadnetzar's dream may be portraying the potential of the Hasmoneans to usher in the arrival of Malchut Hashem. The first kingdom is Bavel, the second Paras, the third Alexander the Great and the fourth are the Diadochi (the rival generals, families, and friends of Alexander the Great who fought for control over his empire after his death in 323 BCE). The Hasmoneans defeated the Seleucid branch of the Diadochi.
+Rav Medan contrasts Yirmiyahu 50:18-19 with Daniel Perek 2. Yirmiyahu HaNavi predicts that Jews would return to Eretz Yisrael; and Daniel, according to this approach, prophesizes that Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael would be restored. Rav Medan notes the parallel to the Shivat Tzion of the twentieth century. It begins with the return to the land under foreign rule followed by Jewish sovereign control decades later.
+TABC Talmidim Critique Rav Medan’s Second Approach
TABC Talmid Shimmy Greengart adds that it does not square with the actual dream. The dream ends with the mountain of Hashem covering the entire land. This is far more than the Chashmonaim ever controlled. Additionally, the Kingdom of God is depicted as superior to the first four empires and destroying them all. The Chashmonaim destroyed no empires; the closest they came was gaining independence from an empire. As such, while that interpretation might work for Chaggai, it does not work in Daniel. One final issue is that it is hard to say that the Diadochi were a separate empire from that of Alexander the Great. They literally came from a disagreement about who really should have been Alexander's proper successor. They considered themselves to be a continuation of Alexander the Great's empire, so why shouldn't we?
+Maharal – Symbolism of the Number 4.
The Maharal, at the beginning of his Ner Mitzva as well as in other places, explains the concept of the four kingdoms as tied specifically to the number four – meaning that the concept is valid regardless of the exact historical number. Maharal regards the number four as representing division (as in the "four winds of the heavens" in Zecharia Perek 6). This concept of division stands in contradistinction to God's Kingship, which is expressed in unity. Hence, Maharal argues, the exact identification of the four individual kingdoms need not necessarily be historically and numerically accurate; several empires may be counted together as the final “kingdom” – especially in light of its composite nature.
+A New Perspective
I heard from none other than Rav Yaakov Medan himself that sometimes, when we cannot discover a satisfactory answer to a question, it means we are not posing the correct question. Perhaps the last three empires are not named since Hashem deliberately wishes to obscure the Keitz (the designated time for the arrival of the Mashiach). It is possible that we are not supposed to know the identity of the empires, for if we did, we would know when Mashiach is destined to arrive.
+The primary lesson of Arba Malchuyot is the temporary nature of any ruler, even the most powerful. Ultimately, Malchut Hashem prevails and we should conduct our lives by this perspective. Maybe the identity of the four kingdoms is not so vital for us to know at this juncture of history. When Mashiach arrives, we will discover the identity of the four Melachim. For now, it remains a mystery, as are other portions of Sefer Daniel as we shall see.
+The lesson of the Arba Malchuyot is that even mighty and expansive empires (be they four empires or even more) rise but will later fall. Only the eternal Jewish people, who represent the Malchut Hashem, prevail and are not buried in the proverbial sands of time.
+Conclusion – Malchut Hashem vs. the Forces of Evil
This idea is expressed poignantly by the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 2:4). The Midrash connects the four phrases describing the forces of darkness mentioned at beginning of Creation, (Bereishit 1:2) followed by the Pasuk “The spirit of Hashem hovers above the waters”, as referring to the Arba Malchuyot which will be succeeded by the Malchut Hashem. This Midrash teaches that forces of evil will be present in the world. While they will be powerful for a while, eventually they will fade away. The Ru’ach Hashem temporarily hovers over them and in the end prevails.
+Whether four kingdoms or more, the message of the Arba Malchuyot, according to the Midrash, encourages fidelity to the Torah. Only Hashem’s Torah reflects eternity. All else might shine bright for a while but will eventually be relegated to the dustbin of history. As reaffirmed by the 2020 PEW study of American Jewry, only those Jews who plug into the eternal Torah and whose behavior and mindset reflects its eternal practices and values (like Daniel), remain as Jews in the long term.
+The arc of history might be long, but it bends in the direction of Hashem, Torah, and Am Yisrael. Am LaNetzach Lo Mephacheid MiDerech Aruka, an eternal nation does not fear a long road.
+
+Perek 3
+
+Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah Refuse to Bow to Nevuchadnetzar's Statue
+
+
+
+Section 1
+
+There are many facets of Daniel Perek 3 that need to be addressed. Let us try to tackle some of the most central issues.
+Nevuchadneztar’s Huge Statue
Daniel Perek 3 begins by describing the enormous gold monument installed by Nevuchadnetzar and his insistence that all his subjects bow to this colossal object. He organizes a massive gathering at which everyone must bow to the statue when a large assortment of musical instruments is sounded. Violations of this decree are punishable by death by being thrown into a cauldron of fire. Why does Nevuchadnetzar make such an enormous financial and psychological investment in this monument?
+The commentary attributed to Rav Saadia Gaon and Malbim make the fairly obvious point that Nevuchadnetzar is responding to the dream recorded in Perek 2. The gigantic figure of Perek 3 is entirely gold in contrast to the statue in Perek 2’s dream, where only the head was gold. In Perek 2, the gold head symbolizes Nevuchadneztar and his empire, which will be overtaken by other empires, and which all will eventually be succeeded by the Malchut Hashem.
+The entirely gold monument symbolizes Nevuchadnetzar’s attempt to fight the dream and avoid his kingdom being overtaken. Insisting that everyone bows to his statue reinforces his dominion over his empire. He might even be trying to insist that all Jews bow to this monument in order to wage war against Hashem. Nevuchadnetzar might be thinking that by undermining the fidelity of Am Yisrael to Hashem, he can undermine (Chas V’Shalom) the Malchut Hashem.
+Nevuchadnetzar‘s Change of Heart
TABC Talmid Yaakov Saks asks: Nevuchadnetzar just recognized Hashem at the end of Perek 2. Why did he revert so quickly to fight Hashem? We might consider the following Gemara (Bava Kama 82a) as a basis for a response.
+Only three days after we experienced Keri’at Yam Suf, we rebelled at Marah. Moshe Rabbeinu and his Beit Din realized that the effect of even a Neis on the scale of Keri’at Yam Suf wears off quickly if not reinforced. Therefore, they instituted public Keri’at HaTorah to ensure Jews would never repeat the dire mistake of going three days without Torah's inspiration.
+TABC Talmid Yaakov Halstuch notes that water refreshes and is life altering in the moment, but its effect is fleeting if one does not regularly drink it. Thus, water is the perfect analogue to the Torah, which also must be imbibed regularly in order to sustain its impact.
+Nevuchadnetzar is inspired at the moment to acknowledge Hashem’s role in Perek 2. However, his inspiration quickly dissipates, and he reverts to his pagan mindset.
+Alternatively, TABC Talmid Rami Gertler explains that despite Nevuchadnetzar recognizing Hashem, he does not fundamentally alter his mindset. The situation is very similar to Paroh who recognizes Hashem as God of all gods. Despite their recognition of Hashem, both Paroh and Nevuchadneztar still believe they can fight Hashem’s decrees.
+Was the Statue Avodah Zarah?
It is not clear whether the statue is idolatrous or merely a monument in honor of Nevuchadnetzar. The Rishonim vigorously debate this issue. For example, Tosafot to Pesachim 53b (s.v. Ma Ra’u) record a Machloket between the two most prominent Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rabbeinu Tam and his Talmid and nephew the Ri, about this matter.
+Sefer Daniel is not clear about this subject. The critical phrase, repeated three times (Pesukim 12, 14, and 18), is that Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah will not serve Nevuchadnetzar’s god, nor will they bow to Nevuchadneztar’s statue. On the one hand, the Pasuk bundles Nevuchadnetzar’s god and statue together, creating the impression that the statue is idolatrous. On the other hand, the Pasuk presents the terms “god” and “statue” separately indicating a distinction between the two terms, and implying that the statue is not idolatrous.
+The ambiguity of the Pesukim may reflect the ambiguity of the situation. Interestingly, even Rabbeinu Tam, who does not define the statue as Avoda Zara, writes that it is not “Avoda Zara Mamash.” Rabbeinu Tam implies that although the statue is not, strictly speaking, defined as Avoda Zara, it smacks of Avoda Zara.
+The Reaction of the Rest of Bnai Yisrael
Daniel Perek 3 records the celebrated refusal of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to bow to the statue. However, it is not clear how the rest of the Jewish People reacted. Many TABC Talmidim argue that Perek 3 implies that only the leaders were present and that Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were the only Jews (aside from Daniel) who served in a position of authority in the Babylonian government. According to this approach, no Jews other than Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah were present when all were expected to bow to the statue.
+Chazal, however, believe that the broader Jewish community attended and submitted to Nevuchadnetzar’s command. Megillah 12a cites Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai (Rashbi) telling his Talmidim that we deserved the terrible scare of Haman as punishment for bowing to Nevuchadnetzar’s statue.
+Defending the Jews
Rashbi and his Talmidim argue that the broader Jewish community was guilty of bowing to the statue, and the scare of the possibility of our mass destruction at Haman’s evil hands was punishment for this capitulation.
+According to Rabbeinu Tam, the Jews felt it was not worth risking their lives, since the statue itself is not, technically speaking, Avoda Zara. According to the Ri, the defense, as Rashbi’s Talmidim indicate, is that they did not intend to worship the statue. Perhaps they felt it was not worth fighting the Babylonian juggernaut, similar to Rabi Yosei ben Kisma advocating heeding the Roman decree forbidding public teaching of Torah (Avoda Zara 18a). If this explanation is correct, the cowering Jews of Daniel Perek 3 sadly presage Jews through the generations who cave to the dominating culture of the day, such as the Mityavnim in the days of the Antiochus decrees.
+Explaining Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah
According to Rabbeinu Tam, it is difficult to understand why Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah place their lives in jeopardy. If the statue itself is not Avoda Zara, there is no Halachic obligation to sacrifice one’s life.
+The significant risks which they undertook may support Tosafot’s (Avoda Zara 27b) sanctioning voluntarily sacrificing one’s life to avoid violating any Aveira. However, Tosafot do not cite Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah as a Ra’ayah, even according to Rabbeinu Tam.
+Moreover, in the very same Halacha where the Rambam (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:4) forbids voluntary Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor, he praises the actions of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The Rambam might believe the statue was idolatrous. However, he groups our three heroes with Daniel and Rabi Akiva, who risked their lives for Mitzvot other than the three for which we must forfeit our lives. This indicates that the Rambam agrees with Rabbeinu Tam.
+We suggest that although there is a technical defense for bowing to the statue, the ambiguity of the situation drives Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to be strict. They fear that their joining the widespread capitulation will drive dangerous creeping assimilation into Babylonian society. Our approach also explains Mordechai’s refusal to bow to Haman.
+The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 18a in the pages of the Rif) asserts that “a prominently pious individual who fears Hashem and recognizes the generation’s spiritual decline may sacrifice his life even if not technically required by Halacha, in order to inspire the nation to fear Hashem”. Nimukei Yosef applies this specifically to the situation of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. He subscribes to Rabbeinu Tam’s view that Nevuchadnetzar’s statue itself was, technically speaking, not Avoda Zara. However, Nimmukei Yosef argues, the broader Jewish community incorrectly perceived the statue as Avoda Zara, and therefore Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah felt the need to sacrifice their life. In such a situation, capitulation would have led to an awful Chillul Hashem.
+Conclusion
Daniel, at the outset of the Galut, makes a bold statement teaching that we Jews will continue to observe the Torah even in the hostile environment of Bavel. Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah take Daniel’s lesson to the next level, communicating that we will not try to bend the Torah’s laws to accommodate a foreign culture. Historically, Jews who turn the Halacha to better fit into society eventually (they, their children, or their grandchildren) assimilate into the broader community.
+Children or grandchildren who see parents’ and grandparents’ tepid commitment to Torah are often not inspired to muster up the strength and courage to maintain Jewish identity in a foreign milieu. Surviving as a minority in exile or even in Israel where the non-observant are the majority, requires full and passionate commitment to Hashem and His Torah. Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah set a powerful example of such depth of commitment. Their having survived Nevuchadnetzar’s cauldron of fire foreshadowed the survival of the committed Jews in the modern melting pot of western culture.
+
+Section 2
+
+Let us explore the depths of three extraordinary Agaddic passages just brimming with meaning and just begging for an in-depth explanation.
+Aggada Number One - Where is Daniel?
Where is Daniel during this episode? TABC Talmid Shimmy Greengart offers an excellent Peshat explanation. Shimmy suggests that Nevuchadneztar wants to retain some soldiers throughout Babylonia to avoid leaving his country vulnerable to invaders at a time when all assemble at the valley of Dura. Shimmy posits that Nevuchadnetzar assigned his trusted advisor Daniel to supervise the soldiers who did not join the great gathering at the Dura Valley.
+The following Gemara (Sanhedrin 93a) offers a different approach:
+(Translation from the William Davidson Talmud) The Sages taught: Three were partners in that plan to ensure that Daniel would not be in Babylonia when the decree of persecution was in effect: The Holy One, Blessed be He; Daniel; and Nebuchadnezzar. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Daniel go from here, so that people would not say that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were delivered from the fiery furnace due to the virtue of Daniel, rather than due to their own righteousness.
+And Daniel said to himself: I will go away from here so that this verse will not be fulfilled in my regard: “The graven images of their gods shall you burn with fire” (Deuteronomy 7:25). Daniel was concerned that because Nebuchadnezzar worshipped him like a deity, his legal status was that of an idol, and he would be burned.
+And Nebuchadnezzar said: Daniel should go away from here so that the people will not say: Nebuchadnezzar burned his god in fire. And from where is it derived that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped Daniel? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Then the king Nebuchadnetzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel and commanded that they should present an offering and pleasing aromas to him” (Daniel 2:46).
+Analyzing Sanhedrin 93a
Hashem’s will, of course, is primary. Hashem aligns the thinking of Daniel and Nevuchadnetzar to align with His own. Daniel’s will converges with Hashem’s will, perfectly illustrating the Mishna’s teaching (Avot 2:4) that we should align our will with Hashem’s will so that He will align His Will with ours. We should submit our will to that of Hashem’s so that He will submit the will of others to ours.
+We are hardly surprised that Nevuchadneztar’s will bends to that of Hashem, as the will of all kings are in the hands of Hashem, as stated in Mishlei 21:1 - Lev Melech B’Yad Hashem, the king’s heart is in Hashem’s hand. TABC Talmid Ezra Seplowitz observes that perhaps Daniel did not fear disobeying Nevuchadnetzar to observe Kashrut since Daniel recognizes that Nevuchadnetzar is merely a pawn in Hashem’s hand and performs His will. Thus, he is confident that Hashem controls Nevuchadnetzar’s reaction to Daniel’s disobedience.
+Why does the attribution of the miracle to the Zechut of Daniel concern Hashem? TABC Talmidim suggest that it is insufficient for Daniel to model continuing fidelity to Torah even while in an alien environment. Jews would be tempted to regard Daniel, who has an extraordinary reputation as at least a quasi-Navi, as exceptional.
+They explain that less extraordinary Jews such as Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah also needed to set an example. We find the Gemara presenting stories of stellar Torah commitment not only of great rabbis but also of ordinary people, such as “Yosef Mokir Shabbat” (Shabbat 119a).
+In addition, Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, representing the broader nation, miraculously surviving Nevuchadnetzar’s burning cauldron symbolizes the miraculous survival of Am Yisrael in the cauldron and melting pot of Bavel.
+Since Hashem wants Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to model commitment to Torah and its accompanying reward, He aligns His will with the will of Nevuchadnetzar and Daniel to remain far from the scene. This is an example of how Hashem balances Hashgacha Peratit with Bechira Chofshit.
+Another interesting facet of this Agada is that Daniel takes steps to prevent the excessive promotion of his name. He realizes that he must leave room for others to shine and steps aside. He also realizes that becoming too prominent is not in his own best interest. Daniel’s humility contrasts sharply with Nevudchaneztar’s self-centered concern.
+People like Nevuchadnetzar have an insatiable lust for power and fame that knows no bounds. Daniel, grounded by Torah values, understands the importance of boundaries and limitations and saves his life by understanding his limits. There is no shortage of famous leaders whose unquenchable thirst for power ultimately brings their downfall. The same happens to Nevuchadnetzar in Perek 4 of Sefer Daniel.
+Agada #2 – Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah and the Tzefarde’im
The Gemara (Pesachim 53b) presents an extraordinary teaching:
+(Translation from the William Davidson Talmud) This was also taught by Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see that led them to deliver themselves to the fiery furnace for sanctification of the name of God during the rule of Nebuchadnezzar rather than worship idols under duress?
+They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, it is written: “And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls” (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose.
+Analysis of Pesachim 53b
One may wonder how we compare Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah to the Tzefarde’im. As human beings, the great trio have free will which the Tzefarde’im do not. Chananiah, Mishael, and Aazriah make a decision unlike the Tzefarde’im who do not. How can the Gemara make this comparison?
+TABC Talmid David Rabbani observes that this Gemara highlights the rich connection between Daniel Perek 3 and the ten Makkot. The analogy between Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the Tzefarde’im is well-founded. The Ramban (in his dramatic concluding statements to the end of Parashat Bo) spectacularly states that Hashem does not perform the ten Makkot, since our recounting the ten Makkot story serves the same purpose of the Ten Makkot.
+Rav Yaakov Emden (in the introduction to his Siddur) famously observes that the survival of the Jews in the exile is a greater miracle than any recorded in Tanach, including the rescue of Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah from the fiery furnace. The fact that we survive to tell the story of the Ten Makkot is a more potent testimony to the ongoing involvement of Hashem in the world than the Ten Makkot themselves!
+In this vein, we may understand the Gemara’s comparison of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to the Tzefarde’im. The three Jews promote Hashem’s name to an even greater extent than do the frogs in Mitzrayim.
+Agada #3 – Yurkemo vs. Gavriel
A fascinating Gemara (Pesachim 118a) records an argument in heaven regarding who would save Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Yurkumo, the Malach of Barad (hail) insists he be the one to save Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Gavriel, the Malach of Eish (fire) argues that he should be the one.
+Rabbi Shimon HaShiloni taught: When the evil Nebuchadnezzar threw Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah into the fiery furnace, Yurkamo, the ministering angel of hail, stood before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, I will go down and cool the fiery furnace, and I will save these righteous ones from the fiery furnace. Gabriel said to him: The strength of the Holy One, Blessed be He, will not be evident in this manner, as you are the minister of hail, and everyone knows that water extinguishes fire. Your action would not be regarded as a great miracle. Rather, I, the ministering angel of fire, will descend, and I will cool the furnace from within, and I will burn it from the outside, to consume those who threw the three righteous men into the furnace; and I will thereby perform a miracle within a miracle. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Descend. At that time Gabriel began praising God and recited: “And the truth of the Lord endures forever” (Psalms 117:2), as God fulfilled His promise to him from more than a thousand years earlier. (translation from the William Davidson translation of the Talmud).
+What deep ideas might this Gemara be trying to express? Rav Yaakov Medan compares this dispute to the dispute between Rav Yosef and Abaye about the widower who nursed his orphaned son (Shabbat 53b). Rav Yosef extols this man saying how great he must have been to deserve a Nes Nigleh (a miracle involving the breaking of the laws of nature). Abaye disagrees, arguing that if he were so great, Hashem would have found a natural means to provide for the baby.
+Yurkemo wants Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah saved by natural means such as a fierce hailstorm extinguishing the fiery cauldron. Gavriel calls for a Nes Nigleh. TABC Talmid Ezra Baron explains that nobody expects fire to extinguish a fire. In addition, not only does Gavriel cool the inside of the cauldron’s fire, but he also heats up the outside. This means that he kills those who threw Chananiah, Mishael, and Azaria into the fire, performing a miracle within a miracle.
+Interestingly, the Gemara awards Abaye the last word, seeming to endorse his view. Hashem prefers to veil His presence to give us an opportunity to choose to seek and discover Him. Therefore, open miracles are a rarity, intended to clarify His continued involvement with the world. This is necessary at the outset of our journey as a nation in Mitzrayim, but going forward the open miracles lessen as time progresses.
+Why then does Gavriel prevail in this dispute and the cauldron is extinguished in Nes b’Toch Nes fashion (miracle within a miracle)? It seems that Hashem judged it to be a pivotal moment for our people. Just as in the wake of our transition from Avdut to Cheirut Hashem “introduced” Himself to Am Yisrael, at this crucial moment of transition from the Cheirut of Eretz Yisrael to the Avdut of Galut He reintroduces Himself. Hashem, in a rare moment, reaffirms His ongoing connection with His people after He banishes us from our beloved Eretz Yisrael.
+We needed at the outset of our first Galut from Eretz Yisrael to experience miracles on the scale of those that occurred during Yetzi’at Mitzrayim, to counter the claims of those who say that Hashem has abandoned us. Thereby, no one can reasonably argue “why are we experiencing such suffering; where are all the miracles our fathers told us about when Hashem removed us from Egypt, and now He has abandoned us” (Shofetim 6:13).
+It is not for naught that Gavriel exclaims at that moment, VeEmet Hashem L’Olam, Hashem’s truth lasts forever.
+Hashem vs. Gavriel
The Gemara also teaches:
+When the evil Nimrod threw our father, Abraham, into the fiery furnace, Gabriel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I will descend and cool the furnace, and I will thereby save the righteous Abraham from the fiery furnace. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: I am unique in my world and Abraham is still unique in his world. It is fitting for the unique to save the unique. Therefore, God Himself went down and saved him. And as the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not withhold reward from any creature who sought to perform a good deed, He said to Gabriel: You will merit the rescue of three of his descendants under similar circumstances (from the William Davidson translation of the Talmud).
+The Gemara distinguishes between the rescue of Avraham from Nimrod’s cauldron and the rescue of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from Nevuchadnetzar’s fire. While Hashem directly saves Avraham Avinu, Gavriel directly saves Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Why do these redemptions come about differently?
+An insight from Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik helps us discover a reason. The Hagada emphasizes that Hashem brought us out of Mitzrayim without the involvement of a Malach. Rav Soloveitchik asks why this is important. The result will be identical since the Malach is a Shali’ach Hashem. He cites the Gemara (Kiddushin 41a) that teaches that it is far superior to marry directly and not via Shali’ach (proxy). The reason, of course, is that although the result is identical, a relationship is established only by the direct involvement of the parties. Hashem directly redeems us from Mitzrayim to forge a connection with us as His beloved nation.
+Avraham Avinu is most deserving of such a glorious connection with Hashem. Hashem directly intervenes to save Avraham Avinu since Hashem wishes to develop a deep relationship with him. Indeed, Avraham Avinu is a rare individual in Tanach whom Hashem describes as “my beloved”, “Avraham Ohavi” (Yeshayahu 41:8).
+By contrast, the Jews in the Babylonian exile hardly merited such an exalted connection with Hashem. Hashem orchestrates an extraordinary miracle to communicate that He has not abandoned His people. However, the Jews at this point are far from deserving the direct loving embrace of Hashem, as Avraham Avinu did. We were exiled due to sin and did not merit such a direct connection.
+TABC Talmid Nachi Scheiner adds that Avraham Avinu did not have a role model to follow. He (together with Sarah Imeinu) is a trailblazer who serves as a role model for future generations. Avraham Avinu is a true Yachid, lone actor, who deserves to be saved by a correspondingly Lone Actor, Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu walk a lonely road, only to be embraced by Hashem who also walks a lonely path.
+Conclusion – Avraham Avinu and Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah
Most interestingly, the Gemara compares the rescue of Avraham from Nimrod’s cauldron with the rescue of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from Nevuchadnetzar’s fire. In our next chapter, we will further develop this comparison.
+
+Section 3
+
+We conclude our explorations of Chananiah, Mishael and Azaria’s iconic refusal to bow to Nevuchadnetzar’s gold monument with an investigation of the glaring parallels between this event, Mordechai’s refusal to bow to Haman, and Avraham Avinu’s refusal to bow to Nimrod’s fire.
+Parallels between Daniel Perek 3 and Mordechai Refusing to Bow
Rav Yaakov Medan develops this connection at length: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/mordechai-did-not-bow. Here is an excerpt of his thoughts:
+“Many midrashim address the similarity between Mordechai, who did not bow to Haman, and Chananya, Mishael and Azarya, who did not bow to the image of Nevuchadnetzar (see Yalkut Shimoni, Shir Ha-Shirim 988). This similarity is expressed in the Gemara (Megillah 12a).
+There are many points of similarity between the story of Haman and the story of Chananya, Mishael and Azarya: the sweeping royal decree to bow down to the image (or a person); the fact that only a single individual (Mordechai) or three isolated individuals (Chananya, Mishael and Azarya) refused to comply with the order; the death penalty that was decreed against the non-compliers; the miraculous rescue; the appointment of the heroes of the story to important offices in the kingdom; and more”.
+We add the crucial point that these parallels point to Mordechai having been inspired by the example set by Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (who draw their inspiration from Avraham Avinu as we shall discuss). Mordechai follows their stellar example of offering their lives to sanctify Hashem’s name even when most of their fellow Jews cave in to the pressure of oppression.
+Parallels between Daniel Perek 3 and Avraham Avinu refusing to bow
The Midrash is well known:
+He [Terach] took him and handed him over to Nimrod, who said to him, “Worship the fire.” Avraham answered him, “Then should I worship water, which extinguishes fire?” Nimrod said to him, “So worship water!” He answered, “Then let me worship the clouds, which carry the water.” He said to him, “Worship the clouds!” He replied, “Then let us worship the wind, which scatters the clouds.” He said, “Worship the wind!” He replied, “Then let us worship man, who withstands the wind.” He said to him, “You talk too much. I worship only fire; I shall cast you into it, and let the God whom you worship come and save you." (Bereishit Rabba 38:13).
+There are many parallels between the Nimrod and Migdal Bavel story and the story of Nevuchadnetzar and all nations bowing to his golden statue. Nevuchadnetzar is comparable to Nimrod (Bereishit 10:8-10) as both are extraordinary Babylonian rulers who establish empires that control wide swaths of territory. In addition, Nimrod’s Migdal Bavel seems comparable to Nevuchadneztar’s golden statue. Both may be seen as an attempt to battle Hashem.
+Rav Yaakov Medan writes, “it is difficult to ignore the similarity between the tower, with its top in heaven, and Nevukhadnetzar's image, which stands sixty cubits tall – the equivalent of a modern 12-story building”.
+“Although there is not a unity of language at Nevuchadnetzar’s statue, Rav Medan writes that unity is achieved through a single melody, a single orchestra, which is understood by all peoples and all languages. The advantage of music over language and words is that it is universally recognized”.
+We suggest that the parallels carry a lesson of profound importance. The power of the Midrash and the parallels between the respective situations is that it sheds light on the motivation for Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to sacrifice their lives.
+We believe that the Midrash is teaching that our great trio is well aware of the parallels between the situations. Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah draw the courage and inspiration to enter the fire. The memory of the miraculous rescue of Avraham Avinu gives them the courage to tell Nevuchadneztar (Daniel 3:17) that Hashem has the power to rescue them from the fiery flames.
+The actions of our founding fathers create our “cultural legacy”. Rashi to Shemot 15:2 (s.v. Elokai Avi) expresses the point beautifully: “The Kedusha did not begin with me; instead, I continue a proud and beautiful tradition from my ancestors”. Avraham Avinu inspires Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah who, in turn, inspire Mordechai. These great actions of our ancestors continue to inspire us as well.
+Conclusion – Your Legacy
This leads us to a most sobering conclusion. In the words of the aged man planting a carob tree (Ta’anit 23a) “just as my ancestors planted for me, so I too plant for my descendants”. Our ancestors have bestowed upon us a glorious legacy that makes us proud. The poignant question we must deeply ponder is: what great spiritual accomplishments will we make that will make our descendants proud of us and draw strength and inspiration from us.
+
+Why Do We Paraphrase Nevuchadnetzar When Singing Kah Ribbon Olam?
+
+Many are shocked to discover that in the popular Zemer Kah Ribbon Olam we, to a great extent, are paraphrasing and expanding upon Nevuchadnetzar’s praise of Hashem in the wake of Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah’s miraculous rescue from the cauldron of fire (Daniel 3:31-33). Moreover, Daniel specifically refers to Nevuchadnetzar as “Ant Hu Malka Melech Malchaya”. The Sefer Daniel theme continues when we ask Hashem in a later stanza “Perok Yat Anach Mipum Aryevata”, to remove Your sheep from the mouth of the lion.
+Why do we at Jewish Shabbat tables each week paraphrase the evil Nevudnetzar, the one who destroyed the first Beit HaMikdash? Our paraphrasing of Nevuchadnetzar is especially troubling since his recognition of Hashem is fleeting and flawed. Here are three suggested explanations:
+A Mechayeiv and a Kal VaChomer
TABC Talmid Nachi Scheiner suggests that since Nevuchadnetzar recognizes Hashem’s supremacy, Kal Vachomer that we should recognize Hashem’s greatness. Nevuchadnetzar is Mechayeiv (obligates) us to praise Hashem in a manner similar to Hillel being Mechayeiv poor individuals to study Torah (Yoma 35b). If Hillel could do it, everyone can. Hillel breaks down barriers, as does Nevuchadnetzar. If Nevuchadnetzar recognizes Hashem, anyone can, and everyone must, recognize Hashem.
+Only Nevuchadnetzar Recognizes the Extent of Hashem’s Greatness
TABC Talmid Gavi Kigner argues that, ironically, Nevuchadnetzar is in a unique position to recognize the depth of Hashem’s dominion. Gavi compares this situation to the Netziv’s understanding of Tehillim 117 where we call upon all nations to praise Hashem.
+It is related that the Netziv (who lived in Lithuania during the second half of the nineteenth century and was forced to deal with the oppressive anti-Semitic policies of the Czarist Russian government) was once confronted by a Czarist official who asked why we specially ask all nations to praise Hashem in Mizmor 117. The Netziv responded that the Czarist government officials (and other enemies of Bnei Yisrael) enjoy a unique and exclusive perspective on the kindness that Hashem has bestowed upon the Jews. Only Bnei Yisrael’s enemies are aware of the innumerable plots intended to persecute them which were unable to be implemented. Thus, the Netziv stated, only other nations are able to praise Hashem to the fullest extent, because only they comprehend the full scope of His kindness to Bnei Yisrael.
+Gavi argues that the same may be said about Nevuchadnetzar. Only he recognizes the extent to which Hashem has foiled his evil schemes against our people. Therefore, ironically, Nevuchadnetzar’s praise of Hashem in a way constitutes the most genuine and the fullest acknowledgement of Hashem's intervention and sovereignty.
+A Taste of Mashiach
Each day we invoke Zechariah’s prophecy of all nations recognizing Hashem. Nevuchadnetzar’s recognition of Hashem, albeit fleeting, provides a glimpse and taste of the Messianic age when all nations will recognize Hashem and seek His guidance (Yeshayahu 2:1-4).
+Our Consistency
Most importantly, we contrast our consistent praise of Hashem, paraphrasing Nevuchadnetzar’s words every Friday evening, with Nevuchadnetzar’s fleeting recognition of Hashem. Nevuchadnetzar’s fails to perpetuate recognition of the truth since he lacks a framework upon which to fasten his deep discovery. By contrast, our constant reinforcement of our recognition of the truth through Tefillah, Shabbat, and the entire Halachic regimen, creates a framework for a lifetime permeated with a healthy recognition of Hashem and adherence to His guidance on how to live the best life possible.
+Conclusion
It is indeed shocking that we cite, of all people, Nevuchadnetzar, at our Shabbat tables. Nonetheless, upon reflection, we discover that there is no better person to quote!
+
+Perek 4
+
+Nevuchadnetzar's Punishment and Redemption
+
+Tzedaka Does Not Save Nevuchadnetzar
After Daniel informs Nevuchadneztar of Hashem’s Gezeira that he is to become like a wild beast, Daniel tells him (Perek 4, Pasuk 24) that he can redeem himself with Tzedaka.
+This advice seems to work, as the beginning of Pasuk 26 indicates that 12 months had passed and Nevuchadnetzar’s punishment did not materialize.
+Pesukim 26-27, though, record an episode which seems to lead to Hashem telling him (Pesukim 28-29) that his punishment will now commence (which it does – see Pasuk 30). Nevuchadnetzar arrogantly expresses his greatness and the greatness of his grand development of Babylon.
+If Nevuchadnetzar gave Tzedaka, then why does his proclamation of Pesukim 27-28 cause the punishment to commence? Why does his Tzedaka not save him from Hashem’s punishment?
+Rashi’s Answer
Rashi to Pasuk 24 (s.v. Hein Tehevei) and Pasuk 27 (s.v. Halo Da Hee), citing the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that the punishment began when Nevuchadnetzar refused to continue to give Tzedaka. As a result, the punishment ensues.
+A question one may pose on Rashi, though, is why this point is not stated explicitly in Sefer Daniel.
+An Alternative Answer
We suggest an alternative to Rashi (which perhaps is the deeper meaning of Rashi) based on a crucial insight of the Malbim.
+The Malbim to Pasuk 23 (s.v. Min Dee Tinda) explains why Nevuchadnetzar receives such an extreme punishment. Nevuchadnetzar’s extreme arrogance must be corrected with an extreme degradation: to be rendered animal-like. Nevuchadnetzar’s erecting the huge gold statue to counter the vision of the Arba Malchuyot, showed his refusal to accept Hashem’s limitations. The creation of the statue and the demand for all to submit themselves to it, demonstrate that the Babylonian emperor was in dire need of tempering his haughtiness.
+Pasuk 23 supports the Malbim, as the lifting of Nevuchadnetzar’s punishment is contingent not upon Tzedaka but upon recognizing that he is accountable to Hashem.
+Based on the Malbim, we explain that Tzedaka has the power to spare Nevuchadnetzar from punishment, since giving Tzedaka can be a form of recognizing that all wealth stems from Hashem.
+Also based on the Malbim, we explain that the arrogant attitude Nevuchadnetzar expresses in Pesukim 27-28 triggers immediate punishment from Hashem, despite the Tzedaka he gave and might even continue to be giving.
+Tzedaka, TABC Talmid Yis Kaminetzky explains, is for Nevuchadnetzar an expression of power. Nevuchadnetzar’s Tzedaka does not foster humility. Instead, it further fuels his arrogance. Hence, Nevuchadnetzar is in serious need of punishment to correct his terrible haughtiness.
+Based on the Malbim, we may understand how Nevuchadnetzar redeems himself in Pesukim 31-32 despite not having given Tzedaka. The moment the Babylonian emperor attains some humility, he is restored to his position of great power.
+Daniel Punished
Based on the alternative approach, we may explain a very puzzling teaching of Chazal (Bava Batra 4a).
+Chazal shockingly say that Daniel is punished (possibly by being demoted in Nevuchadnetzar’s government or possibly by being sent to the lion’s den!) for advising Nevuchadnetzar to redeem himself with Tzedaka!
+Why do Chazal condemn Daniel for advising Nevuchadnetzar to give Tzedaka?
An answer emerges from Yeshayahu who famously condemns the bringing of Korbanot: “Lamah Li Rov Zichveichem” (Yeshayahu 1:13 – which we read on Shabbat Chazon). Why does Yishayahu condemn us for fulfilling a Mitzva set forth in the Torah? We believe that it is because offering Korbanot for the wrong reason misses the point and is even harmful to the Neshama.
+Similarly, Hashem does not recognize Tzedaka given as a form of self-aggrandizement as authentic Tzedaka. Unfortunately, Daniel does not communicate this message to Nevuchadnetzar and is severely punished as a result.
+We believe that our approach expresses the deeper meaning of Rashi to Pesukim 24 and 27. Nevuchadnetzar’s using Tzedaka as a means to enhance one’s already bloated ego, is anathema, and is the equivalent of refusing to give Tzedaka.
+Conclusion
Sefer Mishlei (10:2) teaches that “Tzedaka Tatzil Mimavet”, Tzedaka saves from death. However, Tzedaka is life affirming only when it is an expression of humility. It is a “Sam Mavet”, an elixir of death (to use the phrase of Yoma 72b), when it serves as an ego boost.
+Tzedaka is a very powerful tool. It even has the power to overturn an evil decree. However, its power is fueled only by a proper attitude of giving.
+Postscript
TABC Talmid Yaakov Abrahams notes that the Gemara (Pesachim 8a) seems to run counter to the approach we set forth above. The Gemara considers one to be a Tzaddik Gamur, complete Tzadik, if he gives Tzedaka in order that his son should live or that he himself receive a place in Olam Haba.
+We answer that the individual described by the Gemara seeks noble aims, that his son should be healed or that the individual should merit Olam Haba. The Gemara is not saying that if one gives Tzedaka for any ulterior motive he is regarded as a Tzadik Gamur. The Gemara is far from saying that one is a Tzadik Gamur if he gives Tzedaka as a means to boost his power and ego.
+Moreover, the Tosafot (ad. Loc. s.v. Sheyizkeh) explain that he is a Tzadik Gamur only if he does not regret giving Tzedaka, even if Hashem does not grant him his wish. Thus, the donor described by the Gemara is a humble individual who is far from using the Tzedaka he gives as a means to Chas V’Shalom bribe or manipulate Hashem.
+
+Some Thoughts about Daniel Perek 4
+
+Questions Posed to TABC Talmidim
1. Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 28 (beginning with the words Val Ya’aleh Al Libcha) argues that Nevuchanetzar did not literally turn into a wild animal. Rav Saadia Gaon and Malbim agree. Rather, he acted as a wild animal. Does this seem like a “stretch” or is it convincing? What was your impression from learning this Perek? Please learn the Ibn Ezra, review Pesukim 22, 29, and 30 and share your thoughts.
+2. The Ibn Ezra (from the beginning of his thoughts on Pasuk 28) argues with “the Ga’on” (when the Ibn Ezra refers to the Gaon, he refers to Rav Sa’adia Gaon) as to the meaning of the “seven time periods” in which Nevuchadnetzar is transformed into a “wild animal”. Which one of these explanations seems more convincing? Consider the possibility that neither side is more convincing than the other. Can you bring a Ra’ayah to either approach?
+3. Many records of Nevuchadneztar’s reign have been excavated, such as the Nebuchanezzar Cylinder on display at the British Museum in London: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1885-0430-1
+Fired clay cylinder with an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562BC); this describes the king's work on various projects including restoration of the temples and ziggurats of Babylon and Borsippa; it states that his father's palace had been damaged by flooding; he repaired and extended it; also a new fortress on the north of the city.
+Also, in New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/321676
+I built a strong wall that cannot be shaken with bitumen and baked bricks... I laid its foundation on the breast of the netherworld, and I built its top as high as a mountain.
+However, no records (outside of the Tanach) have been discovered that describe a time when Nevuchadnetzar became insane and temporarily vacated his emperorship. How might you reconcile the absence of such material evidence of this event with what our holy Tanach records?
+Consider the following insight from Professor Joshua Berman of Bar Ilan University, an Orthodox Bible Professor. He writes in his book “Ani Maamin” (an Orthodox response to Biblical Criticism and other academic challenges to the divine origin of the Tanach) that royal inscriptions and records are “akin to modern-day resumes and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind”.
+Da’at Mikra notes the following: an Aramaic inscription found at Qumran, concerning the prayer of Nevuna'id, who suffered a plague of boils for seven years and lived in Timna, in the desert. He was healed by a Jewish sage who recognized the Supreme God. The individual described in the legend is called Nevuna'id, and scholars have debated the meaning of his connection to Nevuchadnetzar. However, it may be that Nevuna'id is a general title – like Pharaoh or Artaxerxes – such that Nevuchadnetzar was the personal name of a certain Nevuna'id. This has been proposed by a minority of scholars.
+Do you find this compelling or is it a stretch?
+TABC Talmidim Comments:
Ezra Kopstick - The reason why there is no mention of Nevuchadnetzar's becoming insane and acting like an animal is because it did not last very long. We know that Hashem increased our suffering in Mitzrayim to shorten the time we had to stay there. So too here Hashem made Nevuchadnetzar's suffering great. Although it felt like a long time to Nevuchadnetzar, it was only in reality a short amount of time. This also helps us understand why he was able to return as king and someone didn't take over his kingdom. It was because he was gone only for a short period of time.
+Elan Agus - I think that the Peshat explanation is like the Ibn Ezra. Perek 4 Pasuk 29 says he will eat grass like cattle, not that he was actually an animal, but that he was like an animal.
+Menachem Kravetz - If Nebuchadnetzar was actually turned into an animal for seven seasons, it seems unlikely he would have the ability to reason and look up to heaven and change his beliefs. In my opinion, all he would be thinking is "Boy, am I hungry"- the way animals think. Additionally, when Nevachadnetzar returned, it would be a much easier transition if he stayed human the whole time. Furthermore, if he was transformed into an animal, he would probably be motivated to quickly recognize Hashem during this transition. Staying human makes him ponder his thoughts for a bit and reach a much better and more convincing conclusion submitting to Hashem’s authority. Arriving at a conclusion after long thoughts and pondering can lead one to a much more convincing conclusion than one that is short and not well thought out. This allows Nebuchadnezzer to appreciate Hashem more and be more willing to stay with Him when exposed to potentially contrary evidence. Lastly, let's remember that Hashem prefers to operate B’Derech Hateva. Therefore, I believe that he was forced to live in the wild LIKE a wild beast for seven seasons, not AS a wild beast.
+Eitan Mermelstein - I find the Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and Rav Saadia to be very convincing. This is especially so since the Pesukim write that his living place will be amongst the beasts, and he will eat grass like cattle. The movie Tarzan came to mind when reading these Pesukim and may be somewhat in line with what these Mefarshim are saying. I believe Ibn Ezra to be more convincing than the Gaon especially considering the vast transformation that Ibn Ezra describes Nevuchadnetzar undergoing. Moreover, if a year of doing Tzedaka was not enough time for Nevuchadnetzar to change and do Teshuva, it seems improbable that a few months in the forest would do the trick. However, I find Ibn Ezra's proof somewhat troubling because the Pasuk he quotes refers to the term “Idan” which is used in Perek 7 as the amount of time until Moshiach will come, Idan Idanin U'Plag Idan. Given that it has been almost 2,500 years since Sefer Daniel was written and unfortunately Mashiach has not come, the Idan in that Pasuk must be referring to around 1,000 years at least. Therefore, Ibn Ezra's proof from that Pasuk does not appear compelling.
+It would be extremely embarrassing for such a large empire to have its emperor go insane, vacate the palace, and then return to power some years later. Therefore, a cover-up (as occurred in the White House after Wilson’s stroke) is not so unlikely.
+The passage at Qumran seems unlikely as those passages come primarily from Bayit Sheini and the Dead Sea Scroll tribes. Moreover, the earliest Dead Sea Scroll that has been found in Qumran comes from the middle of the 3rd Century BCE, centuries later than the time period in which Nevuchadnetzar would have been king. However, Professor Berman's approach is quite sound and logical and may be the correct approach.
+Aaron Teitlbaum - Since there is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did anything insane to destroy his empire it seems like he might have actually turned into a wild animal instead of just acting like one.
+RJ - Chazal do tell of very bizarre behavior in which Nevuchadnetzar engaged (such as eating a live rabbit and far worse!). It could refer to this time period.
+Avi Tepler - It seems like the Ibn Ezra, Malbim and Rav Saadya Gaon are right because the Pesukim indicate that Nevudchadnetzar will only be “like” with the usage of the Hebrew/Aramaic letter כ.
+I agree with Professor Joshua Berman’s assertion, but I also think that the matter of Nevuchadnetzar’s being turned into a beast would not have been made public in Bavel and surely not transcribed so it can be remembered for years to come. This was a severe source of embarrassment for Nevudchadnetzar.
+Yaakov Saks - I believe that Nevuchadnetzar wanted to hide this information and destroyed all the records. We know that emperors can get rid of all the records and make it seem like nothing ever happens, because it occurred in Shemot. We saw that after Yosef died "vayakom melech chadash asher lo yada et Yosef." There is no way that the king didn't know of Yosef; rather, the records must have been destroyed. If the king destroys the records the citizens are forced to forget it ever happened. That, I believe, is why we don't have external evidence of Nevuchadnetzar's animal episode.
+Shimon Greengart - I don't think it matters how long this took. While both the dream and Daniel's interpretation mention seven time periods, the actual event is described only as occurring after some time. I suggest that seven is used here because of its significance as describing completion, including Hashem. There is a reason for the significance of the seventh day and the seventh year (and, during the Omer, seven weeks). The importance of seven here is that Hashem is completely transforming Nevuchadnetzar's mind into a beastly one. Nevuchadnetzar did not respect Hashem's rulership over the world, represented by Shabbat, so Nevuchadnetzar becomes a beast for a Shavua of time. However, it does not actually have to do with how much time passed.
+Even if Babylonian inscriptions were perfect historical records, they still wouldn't include Nevuchadnetzar's illness, because their purpose was to commemorate building projects. Building a city has nothing to do with insanity. Although, the cylinders describing Nevuchadnetzar's accomplishments bring more to light about what it was that he was describing in Pasuk 27. He was literally boasting about having built up Babylon, by physically building more walls and temples. As such, Hashem did not like this self-worship and made him insane.
+Despite so many other details (like the timeframe) matching, I can't see these stories being the same. That doesn't mean that Nevuchadnetzar never went crazy, only that Nevuna’id and his boils is a totally different story, perhaps one that took place during the Second Temple Period.
+Elan Goldstein - At first glance of the pesukim I did not think that he literally turned into a wild animal, rather that he lost his sanity. It also makes sense that this story was never recovered because the citizens likely did not want to bad mouth their king. It seems like he was a strict ruler but mostly liked throughout his empire.
+RJ – Nevuchadnetzar was pretty vicious and brutal but the Babylonian people may have appreciated the economic benefits and improvement of standards of living he brought by transforming Babylon into the world’s supreme superpower.
+Rami Gertler - The reason why it doesn't record Nevuchadnetzar going crazy or even turning into a wild animal is very simple. As Professor Joshua Berman said, who would ever want to record something that the leader of an empire did that was terrible? Who would ever want to remind anyone of something bad that happened to their emperor? Of course it wouldn't record his failures. Hashem happens to be perfect, so we don't have any trouble with that; but Nevuchadnetzar, who was presumably considered the most powerful being in the world at the time, definitely had flaws, but no one would ever dare write that down. But then we come to a problem. Why then, would we ever write down the wrong-doings of our fellow Jews? Doesn't that seem disrespectful? While the answer may not seem obvious, we have to dig a bit deeper. The reason Jews write down these things is to learn from their mistakes. With the Holocaust, for example, we don't know what they did, but we know that it must be a message from Hashem that He wants us to know. So too with regard to every record in Tanach, it is all recorded because Hashem knows that we can learn a lesson from it. Hashem doesn't go out of His way to embarrass someone for doing the wrong thing. He uses them as an example for future generations to improve. This idea goes back to what we learned yesterday. Hashem's goal is not to bully us. His goal is for us to be the greatest that we possibly can be. And the way in which we achieve that is through lessons. Believers in predestination would never record something bad that happened to someone, because they believe that that was decided before that person was born. Jews, however, who believe that they can change and become better people, must learn about what not to do so they can relate more and improve. People are more prone to listen to something if it is a personal story that actually happened. Even though we listen to both Chukim and Mishpatim, there are many for which we don't know the reason. But with stories, we see these mistakes played out as well as their consequences. Therefore, we record the mistakes to learn what not to do in order to become the best Jews that we possibly can be.
+David Rabbani - The pesukim seem to corroborate Ibn Ezra's (and many others') approach. Nevuchadnetzar is compared to a wild animal in many ways (like hair, nails) but is never called an animal. This was likely a seemingly natural process because Hashem doesn't like to engage in miracles where it is not necessary to have the desired effect. Nevuchadnetzar knows it is a punishment from Hashem, either way.
+Ibn Ezra's opinion seems to make more sense, though I think that possibly the 7 "seasons" refers to literal seasons or changes in time, and not a specific amount of time (like 7 days, weeks, months, or years).
+I agree that lack of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, particularly from such an ancient kingdom, and because the evidence would be deprecatory to the supreme leader and king of the huge Babylonian Empire. The Babylonians likely did not record this event simply because it looked bad.
+Benzion Rotblat - The pesukim at surface level sound like the Ibn Ezra, as the pasuk doesn't sound like an outright neis occurred.
+If he was insane, he wouldn't have a) publicized it (it's not like there were televisions in the palace!) (kind of like FDR's wheelchair) and b) recorded it as it would make the king seem less god-like to the people.
+Daniel Gopin - The Ibn Ezra’s reasoning of Nebuchadnezzar not actually turning into an animal is very convincing. We see in pesukim 22, 29, and 30 that it says that he will be fed grass LIKE animals. This would point towards the direction that he didn’t actually turn into an animal. Rather, he was sort of treated like an animal. Also, if I’m not mistaken, we do not ever see in Tanach that a person is literally turned into an animal.
+Ezra Baron - I think that Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of Nevuchadnetzar merely acting like a wild animal is not a stretch, but convincing. Also, I find the approach of Professor Joshua Berman, that historical records often fail to mention setbacks, to be both interesting and reasonable. One famous saying is that “history is written by the winners,” and I think that a lack of evidence that Nevuchadnetzar ever vacated his emperorship can be attributed to this idea, as he did not want his failures or mistakes to become etched into history. Furthermore, as you have taught us before, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and this can certainly be an example of this concept.
+Levi Langer - I strongly agree with Ibn Ezra and Malbim and Rav Saadya Gaon that he did not become an animal physically. This is especially true since the Pesukim state that his hair and nails became like those of animals (birds), implying that the rest of his body stayed human.
+The advantage to Ibn Ezra is that his hair and nails grow longer in years rather than months. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, head hair grows at a rate of 3.5 inches in 7 months, and 42 inches in 7 years. By that point, continued hair growth would be supernatural, since human head hair grows in a maximum range of 12-42 inches, supporting Ibn Ezra. However, eagles don't grow feathers this long (10-22 in). Maybe we should be less literal, then. On the other hand, it's possible that by the fashion standards of 570 BCE Babylon, a hair length of 3.5 inches longer than normal (and seven months of untrimmed nails) was unheard of (at the very least, for a man), disgusting, unhuman, etc. This is particularly true of a king, who grooms to the highest standards, especially if Nevuchadnetzar took a haircut every day like Jewish kings. This would support Rav Saadia Gaon. Ibn Ezra’s main proof is the difficulty in returning to power after seven years of not ruling. However, there is a Midrash in the beginning of Kohelet that says Shlomo lost power, but it is not clear for how long. In any case, Shlomo is different because the Jews were peaceful, cohesive and loved their king; whereas the brutal Babylonian environment would lead to many coups, murders and fractures, etc.
+Obviously, the bricks and cylinders would not record this episode. But if there is substantial non-royal writing extant from Babylon (and I have no idea whether there is), we might expect to see this episode recorded. We also need to consider whether and who would write about him during his absence, and whether and how he would censor and succeed in censoring this information upon his return. Clearly, he does not censor Sefer Daniel. In fact, he seems to publicize the incident, whether he's speaking directly to Daniel to record this episode in his Sefer or a Babylonian scribe to record this, or whether Perek 4 is a speech given to the public or someone else. In fact, he might even record it on the cylinders and bricks, since he has shown how contrite this episode has made him.
+With regard to the Da’at Mikra, I don't know enough information. If scholars are certain that Nevuna'id was an emperor, then it seems compelling to identify him with Nevuchadnetzar, but even then I would need to know more information.
+Yair Levie - Logically, it makes sense to adopt the Ibn Ezra approach that Nevudchanetzar just acted like a wild animal and did not actually turn into one. One idea that would support this is the concept of ‘Teva’, meaning that if Nevudchanetzar actually turned into a wild animal it would be clear that it was Hashem who did it and intervened; however, if he was just acting like a wild animal it could just be Nevudchanetzar acting crazy and it would decrease Hashem’s visible presence in our world, which increases the Teva behind which Hashem likes to disguise Himself. Regarding no records being found of Nevudchanetzar being crazy, I think it is because everyone else, besides the Jews, looked up to Nevudchanetzar as their fearless leader. However, the Jews saw the truth. Thus, only the Jews recorded the times while Nevudchanetzar was going crazy while everyone else just pretty much worshipped him and stayed loyal to him and did not write anything bad about him. This is supported by Professor Berman’s comments that usually, similar to modern day resumes, old records failed to note any setbacks anyone had, and thus Nevudchanetzar going crazy was not mentioned in any old record books. I think Da'at Mikra’s approach is a stretch and that mine and Professor Berman’s approach makes much more logical sense.
+
+Hashem and Nevuchadnetzar; Hashem as a Strict Loving Father, NOT a Bully!
+
+In this Shiur, we focus on a most foundational idea that lies at the core of a Torah life. Unfortunately, it is not as frequently addressed as it should be.
+Hashem – A Strict Loving father
In February 2020 I brought Mr. Stephen Nunez, a young man whom I helped in his successful conversion process in 2019, to address many of our students. One student asked Steve how he views Hashem. Steve responded that he sees Hashem as a strict loving Father (Avinu Malkeinu).
+He explained that Hashem has high expectations of us and holds us accountable if we fail to make the proper effort to attain the goals which we should reach. Hashem, like a strict loving father, does not bully us; He empowers us. A strict loving father seeks the best interest of his child. He wants his child to thrive and become great. However, discipline and hard work are most necessary to achieve this greatness and thus the father is strict in his demands. Hashem’s Mitzvot as well as the concept of Sechar VaOnesh are NOT meant to bully us. Instead, they lift us to be all we can be. When the child of a strict loving father accomplishes all he can, both the loving strict father and son rejoice in great happiness and satisfaction. This is a major goal of a life of Torah and Mitzvot - greatness in personal accomplishment and Middot Tovot.
+In light of this, we consider Daniel Perek 4. One could potentially (and very incorrectly) perceive Hashem as bullying Nevuchadnetzar until the latter submits to Hashem’s superior power. However, Daniel Perek 4 must be understood differently!
+I asked my TABC Talmidim to explain Daniel Perek 4 as Hashem in the role of a strict loving father – Avinu Malkeinu.
+I also asked them to consider two very key Hashkafa teachings: Hashem’s humility and the Kabalistic/Chassidic concept of Tzimtzum, Hashem limiting Himself. How might we understand Hashem’s humility? I see it as His choosing to serve our many needs and His choosing to relinquish power to us. Consider that Hashem does not seek to remove Nevuchadneztar of his power, but rather to uplift his behavior in light of his being Hashem’s servant. But Hashem also services Nevuchadnetzar in establishing a grand empire.
+The following two crucial Mekorot help us to understand what Hashem seeks to accomplish with Nevuchadnetzar:
+a. Megilla 31a (recited by many Ashkenazic Jews every Motzaei Shabbat) observes that anywhere in Tanach where Hashem’s greatness is described, we find His humility described alongside it.
+Hashem is described as humble. His sovereignty over the world is not (Chas V’Shalom) to boost his ego. Instead, he services even the most humble of people. He also serves us by ensuring justice by holding us accountable for misbehavior.
+b. Creating a Relationship with Hashem through Tzimtzum.
+In order for any relationship to flourish, each party in the relationship must submit to certain limitations in his behavior. In a successful marriage, one spouse does not unilaterally decide where to go and what to do during a vacation. Decisions are made collaboratively with each spouse not necessarily receiving everything he or she dreamed of receiving. In a loving relationship, this is not regarded as burdensome, since the benefit and satisfaction derived from the relationship far outweigh any frustration caused by one spouse not receiving everything he wishes.
+Hashem, surprisingly, also limits Himself. The masters of Kabbalah teach that Hashem contracted, limited, and condensed Himself in order for the world to exist (Kabbalah refers to this phenomenon as Tzimtzum). Hashem is infinite and must contract Himself in order for anything but Himself to exist. He must also engage in Tzimtzum in order for human beings to enjoy free will. Thus, Hashem places limitations on Himself in order to allow us to exist in His world.
+Accordingly, it is reasonable for us to accept limitations on our behavior and lifestyle in order to create a space for Hashem in our lives. Shir HaShirim compares our relationship with Hashem to a relationship between a loving couple. Just as each member of a loving couple must accept limitations in order to create a space for the other member, this reciprocal process of limitations must occur in our relationship with Hashem. Both parties in the relationship must create space for the other member by accepting limitations. Hashem engages in Tzimtzum in order to create a space for us, and we engage in Tzimtzum by following the Torah restrictions in order to create a space for Him in our lives. Thus, Torah restrictions should not be viewed as nuisances, but rather as wonderful opportunities to help us forge a relationship with our Creator and Father in heaven.
+Excerpts from TABC Talmid Responses
Ezra Kopstick - Hashem holds different people to different standards like Tzadikim who are held to a higher standard. The same can be true for a king. Hashem grants this individual a whole empire/kingdom and this king has to act as a good role model for everyone in it. So, when Hashem is punishing Nevuchadnetzar harshly it is only because he is held to a higher standard than the average person.
+Rabbi Jachter adds - the more Hashem bestows upon someone the more He expects from them. The Gemara (Ketubot 69a) conveys this crucial lesson.
+Menachem Kravetz - Psychologist Diana Baumrind talks about three different parenting styles: Authoritarian, Permissive, and Authoritative. Authoritarian style is very strict; permissive is lenient; and authoritative is both lenient and strict. The authoritative style, as Goldilocks would say, is just right. Hashem's parenting style with us is the Authoritative method. This method highlights give and take - allowing some leniency, but also being strict. It contains explanation, clarity, and care. In regard to Nevuchadnetzar, Hashem is acting a little strict in this regard - only to provide him with an explanation and explain to Nebcuadnezzer why He, Hashem, is acting in this way, in order to evoke clarity.
+Yair Levie - Tough love does not mean punishment, and sometimes it is necessary in order to teach someone a lesson. Hashem’s actions are ultimately out of love and Hashem just wants the best for him (and for him to be redeemed), not to just purely punish him.
+Elan Agus - Although one could question the reciprocative Tzimtzum principle, it does work very well with the mishnah in Pirkei Avot (2:5) which teaches that we should limit our desires to those of Hashem so that Hashem will limit His desires to align with ours.
+RJ - Tzimtzum is indeed an issue of considerable discussion and debate amongst our great Ba’alei Hashkafa.
+Shimon Greengart - Proof that Hashem is not a bully is that He does not permanently punish Nevuchadnetzar. At the end, Nevuchadnetzar remains the king and with even more grandeur than before. Hashem did not cause Nevuchadnetzar any pain when he transformed him; in fact, Nevuchadnetzar was not thinking while he was an animal. Proof was that at the end, it says Umandi Alai Yatuv, which Sefaria translates as "and my reason was restored to me." Hashem was doing the bare minimum to teach Nevuchadnetzar humility without hurting him. Nevuchadnetzar needed to know this in light of Chazal describing all sorts of atrocities that he had committed. Had he kept them up, he would not have been king much longer. Now that he is humbled, he should act less haughtily, and will probably end the atrocities. This in turn, benefits mankind and Nevuchadnetzar. Thus, Hashem acts in our best interest.
+Benzion Rotblat - Hashem clearly gave Nevuchadnetzar a chance to change and realized that the only way to make lasting change was to bring him from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows.
+David Rabbani - Hashem's Gevurah is associated with our sins because when we examine Hashem's perfection we see our flaws. Only when we limit ourselves do we act like Hashem (who also limits Himself).
+Eitan Mermelstein - I view Hashem in this Perek as giving Nevuchadnetzar tough love so that he can rule the Babylonian empire to his truest ability. Therefore, Hashem forces him to understand what life would be like if he did not live in the palace and if he did not have everything he wanted at his fingertips so that Nevuchadnetzar could grow as a king and person. This would endow Nevuchadnetzar with the ability to become more empathetic and perhaps a kinder king (or at least a less vicious ruler).
+Yaakov Saks - I believe that if one is too kind he will be tricked, and if one is too strict he will lose respect. It is all about the middle ground and with whom you are addressing. I believe that converts especially need a compassionate father to help and be kind to them. For people who are more powerful and have shown resentment towards God, He needs to be a little strict to help them see Whom he is challenging and Who is really in charge. Recognition of accountability to Hashem motivates Nevuchadnetzar to act better.
+Ezra Baron - The Gemara (Avoda Zara 3a) teaches "Hashem doesn't give us tests He doesn't think we can handle". So too, Hashem here is giving Nevuchadnetzar a test He knows can be handled and will ultimately lift Nevuchadnetzar to greater heights than he already achieved.
+Rami Gertler - these punishments are like our constructive criticism from the Almighty; this is not bullying. On the contrary, Hashem is giving him the chance to see what he did wrong and change. Who could ever ask for a better opportunity for that? Hashem isn't being mean. He is helping. And ultimately, it will lead society to become more kind and become as close to Tzelem Elokim as possible for both Jews and non-Jews.
+Daniel Dresdner - My question is, if Hashem gives only the Jews strict parenting (the 613 mitzvot) why are we then comparing this to a case of Nevuchadnetzar who was a non-Jew?
+Rabbi Jachter responds – Sefer Yonah teaches that Hashem’s concern extends to the entire world!
+Liev Markovich - Hashem, who has already limited Himself in the relationship with Nevuchadnetzar by allowing Babylon to grow into an empire, is trying to guide Nevuchadnetzar to limit and humble himself as well. It is a reciprocal relationship that humans have with Hashem - He limits Himself, and we in turn limit ourselves and don't worship ourselves and overstep boundaries. If a person does not fulfill their side of the relationship with Hashem, He has the right to force them to humble themselves.
+Noam Barenholtz - Hashem does limit Himself, allowing Nevuchadnetzar to build his own empire and exercise dominion over a huge area, but Nevuchadneztar has to recognize that Hashem is above all. Nevuchadnetzar must correspondingly limit himself, recognizing his accountability to Hashem to act in a proper manner.
+Eytan Suss – part of the way that shows Hashem is NOT a bully is that Hashem is pained when He punishes us. As we find in Gemara Megillah 29a, Hashem goes into Galut with us. We find this as well in Masechet Taanit 16a, Hashem is with us in our Tza’ar (like with Moshe Rabbeinu at the Sneh).
+When there is no accountability in the world, Anderelamosya (pandemonium) comes to the world (Rashi to Bereishit 6:13 s.v. Keitz Kol Basar). The horrific wave of destruction of June 2020 poignantly demonstrates this point! Hashem holds us accountable because we as individuals and as a community need accountability.
+Boaz Kapitanker - I think the idea of Tzimtzum - Hashem limiting Himself - is highlighted in Daniel Perek 4. Hashem could have taken control of Nevuchadnetzar and changed his mind for him, but instead, Hashem limited Himself. First, He gave Nebuchadnezzar a warning. Next, He punishes Nebuchadnezzar in a manner that shows Nevuchadnetzar precisely how he is wrong. He doesn’t hurt him, He just shows him that he is wrong. Clearly Hashem is acting in the role of a strict loving Father, helping Nevuchadnetzar to do the right thing and limiting Himself in the manner in which He administers the punishment.
+
+Perek 5
+
+Menei Menei, Tekal UFarsin
+
+Daniel deciphers the famous writing on the wall at Belshatzar’s infamous feast as saying Menei Menei, Tekal UFarsin. Daniel explains that it is a message from Hashem that He has counted the years of Belshatzar and they have come to its end. Hashem has also weighed Belshatzar’s merits and found them deficient. Therefore, his kingdom will be given to the Medes-Persian Empire.
+Counting and Weighing?
One may ask, though, why is there a need to also weigh Belshatzar’s deeds if the time has come for the end of the Babylonian empire. After all, Yirmiyahu HaNavi does predict (Yirmiyahu 29:10) that the Babylonian empire will last only seventy years. Now that forty-five years of Nevuchadnetzar, twenty-three years of Evil Merodach, and two years of Belshatzar have passed, the empire’s run should end even if Belshatzar would be a most worthy king.
+Moreover, Yirmiyahu (27:7) states that Nevuchadnetzar’s grandson (i.e., Belshatzar) will be the last Babylonian emperor. Accordingly, Belshatzar’s reign is destined to end no matter how well or poorly he behaves!
+Understanding Nevu’ah
Our question stems from a misunderstanding of Nevu’ah. Nevu’ah is not simply informing us of the future. Instead, as Tosafot to Yevamot 50a s.v. Teida teaches, Nevu’ah informs us of what potentially might happen. Tosafot prove this from the fact that despite the Nevu’ah stated to Yerovam ben Nevat (Melachim I Perek 13) that Yoshiyahu many centuries later will destroy Yerovam’s foul Bamot, Yoshiyahu might never have been born. Had Chizkiyahu HaMelech not prayed that he be given extra years to father a child (as repentance for his refusal to have a child, see Berachot 10a), his great grandson Yoshiyahu would not have been born.
+Accordingly, Yonah is not a false prophet when he announces that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days. Yonah is saying that Nineveh has the potential to be destroyed based on its present course.
+In other words, Nevu’ah is more about the present than the future. Thus, the Babylonian empire has the potential to end seventy years after its establishment by Nevuchadnetzar. However, this prophecy materializes only if Nevuchadnetzar’s grandson proves to be unworthy. Accordingly, when the seventieth year emerges it is time to judge Belshatzar. Since he was found to be most unworthy, he is removed and the Babylonian empire comes to an end. Hence, Hashem both counts the years and evaluates Belshatzar.
+In a similar vein, Hashem at the Brit Bein HaBetarim said we will suffer for four hundred years. Chazal, in turn, say we were in Mitzrayim for only two hundred and ten years. One explanation is that our Tefillot recorded at the end of Shemot Perek 2 influenced Hashem to reduce the “sentence”. Indeed, Ashkenazic Jews recite on the Yamim Nora’im that “Teshuva, Tefillah, UTzedaka Ma’avirin Et Ro’a HaGezeira”, that our actions can influence the divine decree.
+We will later, God willing, further explore this idea in the context of the predicted dates of the arrival of Mashiach based on the Nevu’ot that appear in Daniel Perakim 7-12.
+Influence on Koresh?
Rav Yaakov Medan argues that Belshatzar's downfall motivates Koresh to permit us to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash and return its Keilim to their rightful place there. Belshatzar fell due to disrespecting the Beit HaMikdash and therefore Koresh feared the same fate.
+TABC Talmid Eitan Mermelstein questions this assertion, noting that the Tanach does not make this connection in any relevant Sefer - not in Sefer Daniel, Sefer Ezra or Sefer Divrei HaYamim. The beginning of Sefer Ezra and the end of Divrei HaYamim mention that Hashem influenced Koresh's thinking, leading him to permit us to return. Hashem's influence and not fear of Belshatzar's fate seems to underlie Koresh's pro-Zion actions.
+While Eitan makes a compelling point, one may respond that there are two factors influencing Koresh. One is Hashem and another is his fear of Belshatzar’s fate. The Tanach is replete with examples of what many refer to as “dual causality”, referring to events influenced by both divine manipulation and humans exercising their free will. The sale of Yosef is a classic example. While the brothers had their motivations, Hashem guided events to execute the Brit Bein HaBetarim (see Rashi to Bereishit 37:14 s.v. Meieimek Chevron). Many understand the Mishna 3:15 “HaKol Tzafui VeReshut Netunah”, all is foreseen yet we retain free will, as expressing this idea.
+Meriting Ge’ula
Finally, just because the seventy years have expired and the Babylonian empire has ended, does not automatically mean that the Ge’ulah will ensue. Daniel in Perek 9 prays for the return to Yerushalayim and this Tefillah seems to have influenced Hashem to tilt the events in favor of Koresh permitting us to return. After Yirmiyahu HaNavi sets forth the seventy-year terminus of the exile (Yirmiyahu 29:10), he notes (Yirmiyahu 29:12-13) that we will return only if we trigger the redemption with our Tefillot.
+Conclusion
Hashem often chooses to react instead of acting. Thus, even when a Nevu’ah is set forth, we can have enormous influence on the outcome, both for the good and the bad.
+
+Belshatzar and Achashveirosh
+
+It is well known that Chazal (Megilla 11a) teach that Achashveirosh, like Belshatzar, used the Keilim of the Beit HaMikdash during the wild feast he held in Shushan. Many Ashkenazic Ba’alei Keriah read the words “V’Keilim MiKeilim Shonim” (Esther 1:7) in the tune of Eicha to note this sad fact.
+Achashveirosh’s Fall?
One may ask, though, why does Belshatzar fall very soon after disgracing the Keilim of the Beit HaMikdash and yet Achashveirosh continues to rule for more than 9 years?
+Loss of Vashti
The answer that first comes to mind is that Achashveirosh’s outrageous party led to his acting poorly and losing his wife Vashti. It is not a coincidence that Chazal (Esther Rabbah 3:5) identify Vashti as the daughter of Belshatzar. We speculate that it was Vashti who prodded Achashveirosh, perhaps when in an intoxicated state, to follow in her father’s footsteps and defile the Keilim of the Beit HaMikdash.
+Belshatzar the Innovator
TABC Talmid Yaakov Abrahams answers that Belshatzar innovated the evil of defiling the Beit HaMikdash’s utensils at a wild party. He is therefore punished more severely than Achashveirosh who merely copies his father-in-law’s awful behavior.
+Xerxes’ Colossal Loss to the Greeks
If one assumes the identification of Achashveirosh with Xerxes, then an intriguing possibility emerges. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Xerxes attacks Greece in year three of his reign only to suffer an enormous and surprising defeat. Xerxes' army is nearly decimated during these encounters. He returns to Persia utterly humiliated.
+Some suggest that Achashveirosh throws the wild 180-day party to show he has the material wherewithal to attack and conquer Greece. His devastating defeat not that long after these terrible parties might be seen as his punishment for disgracing the Keilim of the Beit HaMikdash at these wild parties.
+Conclusion
The Kabbalists teach that Hashem limits Himself (Tzimtzum) to make room for us in His world. We reciprocate by limiting ourselves and making space for Hashem. Someone who does not make even the most minimum room for Hashem in his life will suffer the consequences. Those who arrogantly express the notion that they have somehow conquered Hashem, are punished with the most severe of consequences. From Belshatzar, to Achashveirosh, to Titus (Gittin 56b), Hashem has no patience for those who express the ultimate arrogance. Hashem has great patience, but there are limits.
+Mishlei 16:18 teaches, Lifnei Shever Ga’on, arrogance precedes a fall. Great arrogance, in turn, precipitates a great fall.
+
+The Jew is Asked Last and Only the Jew Knows the Answers
+
+Despite Daniel having proven himself as the only one capable of interpreting Nevuchanetzar’s first dream in Perek 2, he consults all of his non-Jewish dream interpreters to explain his second dream in Perek 4 before he consults Daniel. In Perek 6 Daniel is long forgotten until the queen mother brings him to Belshatzar’s attention after all of his non-Jewish wise men are unable to decipher the writing on the wall.
+Why is Daniel consulted last? We believe that his being asked last and the only one, like Yosef, able to help the non-Jewish emperor, reflect many facets of Jewish life in Galut. Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai teaches a most uncomfortable lesson (cited in Rashi to Breishit 33:4 s.v. Vayishakeihu) that “Halacha Hi B’Yadu’a She’Eisav Soneh L’Yaakov”, that it is an unyielding fact that Eisav hates Yaakov. How tragic, but how prescient, is Rashbi’s sobering prediction.
+First, the fact that Daniel is consulted only when there is no other option reflects the very sad fact that many non-Jews hate us for no legitimate reason. Daniel, when needed, is accorded respect. When he is not needed, he is shunned. He is consulted only if no one else can service the leader.
+The second hard-to-swallow lesson is that the Jew is tolerated and survives because he is able to provide a product that no one else can. Our survival, despite the deep hatred towards us that rages across the ages results from leaders realizing they could not function without us.
+The third point is that the Jew carries a wisdom that is not available from any other people. We are, as the famous Russian author Leo Tolstoy is quoted as saying, “the bearers of the prophetic message”. On some level even the Jew hater recognizes this point. This explains enmity towards Jews as transferred anger at Hashem (see Rashi to Shemot 15:7 s.v. Taharos, and Bemidbar 10:35 s.v. Mesanecha).
+Lastly, the Jew being the only one able to guide a host of great non-Jewish leaders from Paroh to Belshatzar, foreshadows Mashi’ach times, when the nations of the world will travel to Jerusalem to receive instruction from and follow the teachings of the Melech HaMashi’ach (Yishayahu 2:4).
+None of these points reflects an arrogant stance. The Jew boldly says in the Vidui of Yamim Nora’im “Ashamnu Mikol Am”, we are guiltier than any other nation. This shocking statement is hardly a mark of arrogance or smugness. We are Hashem’s chosen nation but chosen for a responsibility to live Hashem’s Torah and model proper behavior for the rest of the world. We create a Kiddush Hashem when we are successful at this task and a miserable Chillul Hashem when we fail.
+The day will come when all people will realize this and, in the words of the Navi Zecharia (8:23), “In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold, out of all the languages of the nations, shall even take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying: We will go with you, for we have heard that God is with you”.
+
+Perek 6
+
+Trying to Understand Daryavesh HaMadi
+
+Saving Daniel
Why does Daryavesh the Mede agree to the plan to kill one who prays? Does he not realize he is setting Daniel up to be killed? Moreover, why does he not intervene more vigorously to save Daniel? While it is possible that he was old by the standards of his time and therefore easily misled or that he is weak and cannot muster the strength to counter his advisors, there is a possibility he is strong and shrewd. It is indeed difficult to imagine a leader of a kingdom that spans one hundred and twenty nations as a fool or weak.
+In the past, I wrote an article arguing that Daryavesh HaMadi plays the fool to try to eliminate Daniel but be protected in case he fails. If his plan fails, he can and does blame his advisors (just as Achashveirosh did to Haman). For more detail, see https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/was-daryavesh-hamadi-an-innocent-fool-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter.
+However, TABC Talmidim including Tzvi Naor, note that Daryavesh chose Daniel as his top advisor and even fasted the night he placed Daniel in the lion���s den. This makes quite unreasonable the assertion that Daryavesh the Mede was eager to eliminate Daniel in a manner that would hurt him. We may say the same about a suggestion that Daryavesh HaMadi is testing the authenticity of Jewish beliefs.
+Upon reflection, it seems that Daryavesh HaMadi never expected Daniel to defy his decree. He did not grasp the depth and profundity of Daniel’s commitment to Hashem, Torah, Tefillah, and Am Yisrael. In addition, one must understand Daryavesh’s failure to intervene to spare Daniel from being thrown into the lion’s den in light of a deeply misguided but nonetheless deep-rooted Persian-Median governmental tradition to never rescind a government decision. In his cultural milieu it was unthinkable for Daryavesh to undo a royal decree even to save the life of his trusted and beloved advisor Daniel.
+Daryavesh’s Age
Why does Sefer Daniel mention the age of Darius the Mede when he assumed control of the Babylonian empire? Rashi (citing Chazal) to Perek 6 Pasuk 1 beautifully answers this question by noting that Darius was born the moment Nevudnetzar entered the Heichal of the Beit HaMikdash.
+Rashi/Chazal’s idea parallels Chazal’s teaching that Mashiach was born on the day of the Churban and that Yocheved was born as we entered the gates of Mitzrayim (Sotah 12a). These points reflect Chazal’s famous teaching (Megillah 13b) that Hashem is “Makdim Refu’ah LaMakah, embeds the solution before He introduces a problem.
+Perek 6 Pasuk 1 describes Daryavesh as K’var Shnin Shitin V’Tartin. Why is the “Kaf HaDimyon”, the comparative Kaf, employed in the word K’var? TABC Talmid Benzion Rotblat answers this question based on this Rashi/Chazal. He brilliantly suggests that Daryavesh was not necessarily 62 years old when he assumed control of Bavel, but Hashem's plan for him to take over from Belshatzar was 62 years in the making.
+V’Hayu Limshisa Shosayich
The evil advisors who contrived to murder Daniel were themselves thrown into the lion’s den where they met a horrible death. Similarly, the Babylonians who raised the temperature on the cauldron into which Chananiah, Mishael and Azariah are thrown in Perek 3 are gruesomely burned to death by the extreme heat and fire.
+These deaths reflect the fact that those who seek to harm us are, in the long run, destroyed. We express this idea in Lecha Dodi when we say V’Hayu Limshisa Shosayich. Yirmiyahu HaNavi informs us (Yirmiyahu 2:3) “Kol Ochelav Yeshamu”, those who seek to harm will eventually be destroyed. This idea is already reflected in the Brit Bein HaBetarim where Hashem promises Avraham Avinu that he will punish the nations that will harm us.
+This phenomenon continues through the ages. Spain, after it banished faithful Jews in 1492, became a third-class country. It has never even come close to regaining its former prestige. Germany suffered the deaths of more than nine million of its civilians during World War Two and that nation has never regained the academic and scientific glory it enjoyed before that terrible war. Those Palestinians who regrettably embrace a culture of hatred towards Israel and Jews overwhelmingly wallow in poverty. Gittin 56b teaches that those who revile the Jews may enjoy great success in the short term. However, they are also doomed to long term suffering. How we wish no one would take up this noxious Faustian bargain!
+
+Why did Daniel risk his life to recite his Tefillah? He Nearly Lost His Life in the Lion's Den!
+
+The Abarbanel poses the obviously large question – why did Daniel risk his life for Tefillah? After all, failing to recite one’s prayers is not one of the three cardinal sins for which we say Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor. This is especially true according to the Ramban who rules that Tefillah is a rabbinic obligation.
+Approach #1 - Abarbanel
Abarbanel argues that Daniel did not think he would be caught. However, Pesukim 11 and 12, which state that Daniel prayed by his attic window, hardly support Abarbanel (as noted by the Malbim to Pesukim 11-12). Consider that when religious Jews in the Soviet Union observed Mitzvot such as learning Torah, Brit Milah, Mikvaot and Matza baking, they did so in hiding.
+Approach #2 – Malbim
The Malbim to Pesukim 11-12 argues that Daniel did not think he was endangering himself by davening his standard thrice daily Tefillot. Daniel thought the decree applied only to special requests. The TABC Talmidim, including Shimshy Gordon, note that this would be quite a flimsy defense for Daniel. It would seem quite reckless and irresponsible for Daniel to take such a severe risk.
+Approach #3 – The Sefer Chassidim
The Sefer Chassidim is the lone Rishon who argues that avoiding Tefillah is Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor. The following Mishnah (Berachot 5:1) and Gemara (Berachot 32b and 33a) do not support this outlier view, as they teach that in case of inescapable danger one should interrupt even his Amida.
+Moreover, Daniel could have maintained his prayer routine without risking his life by simply davening in his basement or closet. Why did he needlessly (seemingly) expose himself to terrible danger by praying in front of his attic window?
+Approach #4 – The Ramban and Ran: Sha’at HaShemad
Ramban and Ran to Shabbat 49a claim that Daniel continued to Daven because it was a Sha’at HaShemad (a time of religious persecution). However, they do not explain why they think it was a Sha’at HaShemad. This task is left to us to develop.
+Rambam Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:3 (who explicitly alludes to Sefer Daniel!) explains Sha’at HaShemad as a situation where an evil ruler targets Jewish practice in an effort to eliminate its observance.
+Daryavesh HaMadi’s decree of thirty days of no prayer does not seem to meet the Rambam’s criteria for Sha’at HaShemad. The Malbim on Pesukim 7-8 and 11-12 argues that it is not. The decree targets Daniel, not Torah observance. Moreover, as noted by TABC Talmid Chanan Schrieber, the non-prayer decree expires in thirty days.
+Rav Medan’s Explanation of the Ramban and Ran
Rav Yaakov Medan thinks it is a Sha’at HaShemad based on Yirmiyahu 29:10-14 and Daniel Perek 9. Rav Medan asserts:
+We make an assumption that has no explicit basis in the text. This assumption is the connection between chapter 9 and the narrative in chapter 6.
+Daniel has high hopes for the seventieth year, inspiring his great prayer for the redemption, a prayer which had been anticipated and awaited by Yirmiyahu. In a development that is clearly the work of Satan, it is specifically in this year, the seventieth year, that the ministers of Darius the Mede invent the decree prohibiting prayer to any god or power except for Darius himself. Daniel is well aware that this decree may cause the time for redemption to be missed. He does not view it as an incidental development. He views it in the context of Yirmiyahu's words on prayer, and understands that the decree is a test that God is imposing on His people, on the eve of the redemption, to see whether they love God with all their heart and all their soul and whether they will fulfill Yirmiyahu's prophecy simply and wholeheartedly:
+ And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to Me, and I will hear you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. (Yirmiyahu 29:12-13)
+ Daniel views the situation as a test – but not in the sense that he is certain that God will save him. He intends to give up his life if he is caught in prayer, but is not prepared to miss the hour of favor that is critical for the redemption.
+Rav Medan’s approach is certainly highly creative and “out-of-the-box.” However, it does not withstand scrutiny. If his approach is accurate, one would expect Sefer Daniel to clearly connect Perek 6 and Perek 9. Moreover, Daniel could have recited the identical Tefillah if he merely closed the shade or prayed in a closet. He could have prayed for redemption in hiding and it would have been just as effective (unless one argues that Daniel was trying to inspire the rest of Am Yisrael to follow suit and pray).
+A New Explanation of the Ramban and Ran
Let us try to develop an alternative explanation of Ramban and Ran that it is a Sha’at HaShemad. The Ramban and the Ran compare Daniel’s actions to Elisha Ba’al Kenafayim’s heroic defiance of the evil Roman government’s decree forbidding the wearing of Tefillin on the pain of death. Elisha, in turn, wore his Tefillin in public. When chased by a Roman officer, he hid the Tefillin in his hands claiming they were dove’s wings. When he opened his hands, they miraculously turned out to be dove’s wings! The Gemara concludes that just as wings protect a dove, so too Mitzvot protect the Jewish people.
+The comparison seems off-hand to be inapt, as the Roman decree targeted Torah observance while Darius the Mede’s decree was designed to attack Daniel. TABC Talmid Shimmy Greengart describes the Daniel situation as a de facto Sha’at HaShemad. TABC Talmid Shimshy Gordon calls it a quasi-Sha’at HaShemad. Add to that the fact that the anti-prayer decree was in effect for thirty days. Torah observance could have continued to thrive despite conducting Tefillah in hiding for thirty days.
+To explain Daniel’s choice, we note that it is the first year of a new empire in charge of the Jews. The Babylonian empire’s hatred of Jews is quite apparent from Daniel repeatedly becoming sidelined by their leaders despite his unmatched prodigious talent. By contrast, the one Median-Persian empire seems quite philo-Semitic (at least until Haman arrives on the scene). Daniel is very quickly promoted by Darius the Mede to serve as his leading advisor. Darius the Mede seems to genuinely harbor great affection and admiration for Daniel. Later, Koresh permits the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash. Darius the Persian even finances the completion of the Beit HaMikdash. Much later, kosher food was offered as an option for Jews who attended Achashveirosh’s raucous party (Megillah 12a with Maharsha s.v. La’asot Kirtzon Ish Va’Ish). The three advisors who plotted against Daniel do not, unlike Haman, seem to be motivated by anti-Semitism. Instead, jealousy of Daniel’s promotion seems to fuel their evil actions.
+In such an environment Daniel feared Jewish assimilation. While violent anti-Semitism threatens the Jewish body, philo-Semitism threatens the Jewish soul. Just witness the millions of Jews lost to assimilation and intermarriage in the predominantly philo-Semitic United States.
+Daniel feels an urgent need to publicly defy the decree in a stunning demonstration and modeling of remaining steadfastly and unreservedly loyal to the Halacha even under the new regime. Daniel dramatically blazed a trail of no compromise to Halacha under Media-Persia.
+The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 18a in the pages of the Rif) asserts that “a prominently pious individual who fears Hashem and recognizes the generation’s spiritual decline may sacrifice his life even if not technically required to do so by Halacha, in order to inspire the nation to fear Hashem”.
+While Daniel’s public prayer was dangerous, his refraining from such Davening would have been far more dangerous to the spiritual survival of our people. The same may be said for Mordechai's refusal to bow to Haman and Elisha Ba’al Kenafayim’s refusal to capitulate to the Roman decree to not wear Tefillin.
+Each of these great men recognized that the Mitzvot protect the Jewish people. Only Mitzva observance ensures Jewish continuity. The PEW report on American Jewry of 2020 makes this abundantly clear. The picture that emerges from this study is that Jews under 30 are, broadly speaking, either Orthodox or unaffiliated. The Jewish people are an eternal people who outlast all other nations. However, only Jews who are plugged into eternity by fully observing the Eternal Torah’s Mitzvot and are fully aligned with the Torah’s Eternal values, survive in the long run.
+Daniel’s refusal to refrain from Tefillah in public view in his old age fits with his refusal to eat non-kosher as a boy in Nevuchadneztar’s palace at the beginning of the Babylonian exile. It also fits with Chanania, Misha’el, and Azariah’s refusal to bow to Nevuchadneztar’s image, especially according to Rabbeinu Tam that the statue was not, technically speaking, Avoda Zara. Daniel continues to pave a path for Jewish survival at the dawn of the new era of Persian-Median rule.
+Conclusion
Far from reckless, the heroism of Daniel, Rabi Akiva, and my grandfather for observing Shabbat in New York in the early twentieth century, model what it takes for Jewish survival. Dedication, determination, and willingness to sacrifice are the hallmarks of Torah Jews whose survival is everlasting.
+
+Daniel and the RCBC Closing Batei Knesset During the Covid 19 Pandemic
+
+During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in May-June 2020, in the midst of a very intense lockdown, I asked the Talmidim what they think Daniel, who risked his life to pray to Hashem, would think of the Rabbinical Council of Bergen County’s (RCBC) momentous decision (endorsed by Rav Schachter and Rav Willig) to close the Batei Knesset in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic?!
+Here are their responses:
+Eitan Mermelstein - I believe that Daniel would approve of the RCBC's decision because when Tefillah becomes a dangerous public action which could result in death, he does not force other Jews around him to join. He continues davening at home but is not willing to risk the lives of the community.
+Ezra Kopstick - I think that Daniel would agree with the RCBC's decision to close down shuls for 2 reasons. One is because we are still davening at home - the RCBC didn’t tell Jews to not daven at all; they just want us to daven at home. This is different than what Daniel was doing because he wasn’t allowed to daven at all. Two, risking your own life is very different than risking the lives of others. If one would go to shul, he would have spread the virus to other people which would hurt other people. Daniel on the other hand was only sacrificing himself for davening.
+Elan Agus - I think that he would support the decision to close the Shuls because, even though Tefillah Btzibbur is so important, life is more important.
+Menachem Kravetz - I think Daniel would see the closing of shuls under the RCBC as a test for us. Some people only go to shul because they want to hang out. Others are able to concentrate and feel connected to Hashem only in a Minyan. We are currently experiencing a test to show that no matter what happens we will always believe in Hashem and be devoted to Him through davening, talmud Torah, mitzvot, and much more.
+Avi Tepler - This is a hard question, considering Daniel persisted in his Tefillah and encouraged Klal Yisrael to do so (albeit B’yechidut). However, I think he would recognize that Klal Yisroel’s mission during Covid-19 isn’t Tefillah B’tzibbur bur rather V’chai Bahem and this is the great Mitzvah to perform right now. And as Daniel davened in the chamber in his house to connect to Hashem and Avraham instituted Shacharit praying alone, we discern from their actions the power of the one on One. Tefillah B’Yechidut enjoys a certain advantage and can strengthen our grasping the importance of Tefillah and our improving focus during Tefillah.
+Boaz Kapitanker -Regarding the RCBC’s decision, I think Daniel would support it, as Tefillah isn’t a Yeihareig V’Al Yaavor, but would hope that everyone would daven at home and that shuls would re-open as fast as possible. Indeed, since Tefillah is so essential to us, maybe it should be considered an essential business.
+Shimon Greengart - I don't think that a Yeihereig V’Al Yaavor status for Tefillah will affect whether or not we should close down Shuls. After all, even if there were a Yeihereig V’Al Yaavor for Tefillah, it likely would not extend to Tefillah Bitzibor. While there are people who won't daven or won't daven as much outside of Shul, you have no obligation to risk your life or do an Aveira so that they can do a Mitzvah. I don't even think that you would say that it was a time of Shaat Hashmad, because while there were laws against these gatherings, they were based on health concerns and supported by the Jewish communities.
+Liev Markovich - The RCBC is showing leadership like Daniel. Daniel led by example, still davening and believing even amid persecution, and so too the RCBC is leading by example by closing Batei Knesset. By not going to shul, you are not only being mosser nefesh for yourself, but also for the rest of your community.
+Elan Goldstein - As for Daniel’s thoughts on the RCBC's decision, I do not think that he would be happy about it but he would make the same decision. They would agree that saving numerous lives is the correct choice and more beneficial in the long run. Every life is like a universe.
+Noam Barenholtz - The reason people would be opposed to closing shuls is twofold. One, Tefillah BeTzibbur is a value. Two, if there's no shul, people may not daven. Regarding the first problem, Daniel did not daven with a Tzibbur, so I don't see the problem he would have with us not doing it either. Regarding the second, I'm not sure. But there is a Mitzvah De'oraita to preserve life, and the normative Jewish value would be to not have minyanim when people could transfer a deadly disease to one another, so I just have to assume Daniel would follow that normative view.
+Rami Gertler - I think Daniel would be very disappointed with those who have been davening with minyan and defying the RCBC. There is a difference between defying the laws of non-Jews to show your devotion and defying the laws and orders of the Jewish community to show your faith in Hashem. Defying non-Jews who seek to harm us shows that we are unwilling to assimilate. Defying the leaders of the Jewish community is a way of saying that you do not agree with them and will not follow their instructions to keep other people safe. Daniel wanted to prove a point. Those who have been davening with a minyan this whole time have shown disrespect to the leaders of the Jewish community. They are putting many people's lives at risk by doing so. It does not show your Emunah in Hashem whatsoever. I don't think Daniel would commend these people.
+Yair Levie - Regarding the RCBC decision, I think it is very different from Daniel as one is permitted and encouraged to daven and learn at home. Thus, these situations are incomparable as Daniel was completely forbidden to daven and learn and we have the opportunity to do both as much as we want during this time, so Daniel would not really have a problem with it (he too was just davening and learning alone in his house).
+
+Perakim 7 and 8
+
+New Perspectives on the Arba Chayot of Perek 7
+
+The Arba Chayot of Daniel Perek 7
Daniel Perek 7 records a heavenly vision shown to Daniel in which there are four terrifying beasts who are judged by Hashem and their rule is given to a human whose kingdom will last forever. Daniel is baffled by this dream, and he requires a Malach to explain the images. The Malach notes that the four monstrous creatures represent four ferocious Empires who will harm the Jewish people. The Jewish people will eventually overcome, and their kingdom will last forever.
+Two Major Questions
Two major questions emerge from learning Daniel Perek 7. First, why is the vision of the Arba Malchuyot, already shown to Nevuchadnetzar in Perek 2, repeated in Perek 7? Second, since Daniel knew the interpretation of the dream recorded in Perek 2 about the Arba Malchuyot, why is Daniel baffled by the images of these four dastardly beasts? Should it not be obvious to Daniel that they refer to the Arba Malchuyot which will be succeeded by the Malchut Hashem?
+Distinguishing between the Arba Malchuyot of Perek 2 and Perek 7
We may answer by noting that Perek 2 is fundamentally a message to Nevuchadnetzar – his reign is not forever. Hashem is the only Eternal King. Of course, we must internalize this message and realize that Hashem the Eternal One is superior to the temporary Nevuchadneztar (or to any other person who wields temporal power over you, such as your boss who is the CEO of a prestigious law firm and is pressuring you to attend a meeting held on Shabbat). Nonetheless the central message of Daniel Perek 2 is that Nevuchadnetzar and his successors are not eternal. No discussion or reference is made to Jewish suffering under these four empires.
+Perek 7’s message, however, is directed at us – this is why Daniel receives the message. The message is a terrifying one. The message is one of great suffering that we, the Jewish people, the Kadishin (holy ones), will endure at the hands of horrifying kingdoms appropriately symbolized by noxious beasts. The suffering is quite diverse and extends for a very long time. The suffering seems to last much longer than the seventy years of Galut prophesied by Yirmiyahu – for “Idan, Idanim, UFelag Idan”, a period of time, two eras and a half an era (Pasuk 25). While we do not know exactly how long this is, it is clear that it refers to a very long period of time! The fourth kingdom seems most terrifying of all and its terror is directed towards Hashem and us.
+Daniel finds this dream utterly shocking. This dream, which occurred in the waning days of the Babylonian Empire (year one of the three years of Belshatzar’s rule) alerts Daniel to the impending end to Babylonian dominance. However, Daniel (along with all of Am Yisrael) expect all to return to normal at the rapid approach of the end of the seventy years of Galut announced by Yirmiyahu HaNavi. Daniel is utterly shocked to learn that the suffering continues even after the end of Yirmiyahu’s seventy years.
+We the Jewish People are reassured, though, that despite this very long period of suffering, ultimately we (and Hashem) prevail and emerge as the eternal people. We last forever since we reflect the eternal word of Hashem. However, only the Kadishin, the Jews plugged into Chayei Olam (Daniel 12:2) who reflect the eternity of Hashem, last forever. The central goal of every Orthodox institution is to facilitate our connection to the eternity of Hashem, His Torah and His People. This is the key to joining the ranks of the immortal Jew.
+The four kingdoms are repeated to communicate that we Jews will endure suffering for an enormous amount of time. This also seems to explain why Daniel is so disturbed by this vision, especially by the last kingdom.
+The Piyut Baruch Hashem Yom Yom
Many Jews traditionally sing the Piyut Baruch Hashem Yom Yom as part of the Shabbat afternoon Zemirot. The idea of the Arba Malchuyot succeeded by the Malchut Hashem is emphasized in this popular poem. This Piyut echoes the central message of Daniel Perek 7. The suffering under the Arba Malchuyot will be long and difficult. However, Hashem does not abandon us – the Piyut’s phrase “V’Lo Netashtani Kol Yemei Idanai”, refers specifically to the Idanim of Daniel 7:25, the eras whose culmination will be the arrival of the Mashiach and the Malchut Hashem.
+This Piyut has encouraged Jews for centuries to hold firm through these long and difficult times. Eventually we, the eternal people steadfastly upholding Hashem’s eternal Torah, will emerge as the Malchut Hashem which will outlast all the other kingdoms. Rav Avraham Pam relates that Jews being led to the gas chambers chanted in Yiddish “Mir Zennen Zei Ibberleben”, we will outlive them (referring to the evil Nazis). What a powerful expression of the central message of Daniel Perek 7 as reinforced by generations of Jews singing “Baruch Hashem Yom Yom” each Shabbat!
+
+Sefer Daniel and Predicting Mashiach's ETA
+
+Sefer Daniel presents numbers and terms indicating the expected arrival time of Mashiach. The phrase “Idan, Idanim UFelag Idan” of Daniel Perek 7 Pasuk 25 might refer to three and a half “idans” or eras. Daniel 8:14 refers to the number 2,300 without mentioning whether they are days, weeks, months or years. Daniel 12:12 refers to the number 1,335. Many use these numbers as a basis to calculate the Keitz, Mashiach’s estimated time of arrival.
+One Approach to Calculating the Keitz
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 97b) condemns those who predict the date of Mashaich’s arrival. The Gemara (Megilla 3a) relates that a Bat Kol rang out forbidding the great Tanna Rabi Yonatan ben Uzziel from composing a Targum to Ketuvim lest he reveal the Keitz (which Rashi explains is alluded to in Sefer Daniel). Masechet Derech Eretz (Perek HaYotzei 13) even says that those who try to calculate the Keitz (Mashiach ETA) are denied a share in Olam Haba! The Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 12:2) codifies these rejections of Keitz calculations.
+There are serious problems with predicting Mashiach’s arrival date. If one errs, he has needlessly raised the hopes of our people, only to have them crushed when the great expectations are not realized. Moreover, people will not endeavor to improve themselves in order to merit Mashi’ach’s coming because they think it is inevitable. Once an authority interprets the Tanach as prophesying Mashiach’s definite arrival at a certain time, one no longer needs to work to merit his coming.
+The Ibn Ezra
Of the major classic commentators to Sefer Daniel, Ibn Ezra is one of the few who do not try to calculate the arrival date of the Mashi’ach. Ibn Ezra (to Daniel 8:25) notes that the numbers indicating Mashi’ach’s arrival date are obscure to the point of being incomprehensible to human beings. Ibn Ezra notes that Daniel states (8:27) that he finds these dates incomprehensible. Moreover, he notes that Daniel 12:8 states that these numbers are “inaccessible and sealed”. Only when Mashi’ach arrives will our wise men be able, in retrospect, to decipher the meanings of these numbers.
+Until the Ge’ulah, though, we are not able to know, and should not know, the date of the Ge’ulah. Similarly, when the Torah in the Brit Bein HaBetarim sets forth the date of four hundred years for the redemption number, it was not understood before the redemption occurred. In retrospect, we understand the four hundred years as starting with the birth of Yitzchak Avinu. However, it was pointless for us until the redemption to calculate the date we will be saved.
+When Yirmiyahu HaNavi sets forth the seventy years of redemption, in retrospect we understand it both as the seventy years of Babylonian rule (from 609 BCE to 539 BCE) and the seventy years from Nevuchadnetzar’s destruction of the Beit Hamikdash (586 BCE) until its being rebuilt with the support of Daryavesh the Persian in 516 BCE. In the midst of the suffering it is impossible to calculate. Therefore, the Gemara (Megillah 11b-12a) states that Belshatzar, Achashveirosh and even Daniel misunderstood the terminus of the seventy-year sentence.
+One may ask why then does Sefer Daniel present numbers that are presently incomprehensible. TABC Talmidim including Boaz Kapitanker and Gavi Kigner explain that it is to show that the suffering will not last forever. It will end at some definite time, although we do not know, and we should not know, when it will be.
+Another Approach to Calculating the Keitz – Rav Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Abarbanel and Malbim
Despite all these objections to calculating the Keitz, we are shocked and (perhaps even somewhat disturbed) to discover most of the major commentaries to Sefer Daniel offering specific dates for the Keitz by interpreting certain Pesukim in Sefer Daniel. The predicted dates arrive and pass without Mashiach coming but the predictions continue unabated. Rav Saadia Gaon predicts 988 C.E., Rashi predicts 1399 C.E., Abarbanel predicts 1505 C.E., and then Malbim predicts 1928 C.E.
+Before we try to explain why the Mefarshim make these calculations, let us review the basics of the respective views. Rashi and Abarbanel focus on the phrase “Idan, Idanin, UFelag Idan” of Daniel Perek 7 Pasuk 25. This phrase expresses the time we must wait until the final redemption. Rashi understands this phrase to mean one and a half eras after the cessation of bringing the Korban Tamid in the second Beit HaMikdash, which occurred in 64 C.E. (based on Daniel 12:8-13).
+Rashi defines an “Idan”/era as 890 years – the time from Yetzi’at Mitzrayim until the first Beit HaMikdash was destroyed. 1.5 eras are 1335 years which when added to 64 C.E. is 1399 C.E. The number 1335 also appears as a Keitz year in Daniel 12:12.
+Abarbanel understands “Idan” as referring to 410 years, the number of years Bayit Rishon stood. He believes that “Idan, Idanin, UFelag Idan” refers to 3.5 “Idans” = 1435 years. The starting point is 70 C.E., the year of Churban Bayit Sheini. Result – the Keitz is 1505 C.E.
+Calculations of Rav Saadia Gaon and the Malbim
Daniel Perek 8 Pesukim 23-25 speak of the rise of a brazen (עַז-פָּנִים) king. His reign of terror will end after a time period of 2300 years according to Daniel 8:14 (the Pasuk does not specify whether it is days or years). Rav Saadia Gaon interprets this as 2300 years from Yetziat Mitzrayim. Yetziat Mitzrayim occurred (according to the Seder Olam) in the year 2448 from Creation. Mashiach’s arrival, accordingly, was scheduled for 4778 = 988 C.E.
+Malbim counts the 2300 years from the occurrence of Daniel’s Nevuah in the year 3388. This comes to 5688 from Creation = 1928 C.E.
+Why these Mefarshim Make These Calculations
In exploring this issue in depth with my TABC Talmidim I asked for their suggested explanations as to why the Mefarshim make these calculations.
+Elan Agus suggests that the Mefarshim are not trying to calculate the Keitz but simply trying to explain the Pesukim in Sefer Daniel.
+Eitan Mermelstein observes that Rashi to Daniel 8:14 sets forth a critical point. Rashi writes that the Mefarshim are guessing since they do not fully understand the Pesukim. Sefer Daniel (8:26 and 12:9-10) states that these dates are actively hidden from our understanding, so we cannot achieve anything close to certainty in interpretation.
+We suggest that the Mefarshim’s calculations are an expression of Tefilla to Hashem. They echo the beautiful Pasuk (Tehillim 102:14), where we ask Hashem to redeem us since the Moed/Keitz/appointed time of Ge’ulah has arrived. By setting forth the various dates for Mashiach’s ETA, we strengthen our plea that the time for the ultimate redemption has arrived.
+The best explanation seems to be that of Ezra Kopstick and Benzion Rotblat who suggest that these are times when there is potential for Mashi’ach to come. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 94a) writes that Chizkiyahu HaMelech had the potential to be the Mashi’ach, but he failed to actualize his potential.
+Rav Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Abrabanel, and Malbim may be interpreted as teaching that the dates they set forth are times ripe with potential for Mashi’ach’s arrival. If we are deemed worthy we will be redeemed. These great Mepharshim are urging us to improve ourselves to the point at which we merit the Messianic age at these potential arrival times.
+Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi asks Mashi’ach when he will arrive (Sanhedrin 98a). Mashi’ach answers “today”. After he did not arrive, Eliyahu HaNavi explains to Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi that Mashi’ach meant to say (HaYom Im B’Kolo Yishma’u) “today, if we heed Hashem’s voice”.
+Conclusion
As we have quoted, Tosafot (Yevamot 50a s.v. Teida) teaches that Nevu’ah expresses potential but does not set the future in stone. The future can be changed by Teshuva, Tefillah and Tzedaka. Nevu’ah is hardly an abdication of responsibility. Quite the opposite is true. Nevu’ah is a summons to act responsibly.
+Postscript
Da’at Mikra and Rav Yaakov see Malbim’s interpretation of Mashi’ach’s arrival in 1928 as supporting the idea of the modern rejuvenation of Eretz Yisrael and the establishment of Medinat Yisrael as Reishit Tzemichat Ge’ulateinu, the beginning of the flowering of the dawn of our deliverance.
+Moreover, some, including Rav Yitzchak Herzog, insist that there will not be a third Churban. For a full discussion of the basis of this opinion, and why some Religious Zionist authorities such as Rav Aharon Lichtenstein do not subscribe to this approach, see https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/does-the-torah-guarantee-the-survival-of-medinat-yisrael-part-one-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter.
+However one views this topic, this interpretation of the Torah should not lead to an abdication of responsibility. As Tosafot makes absolutely clear, even an explicit Nevu’ah may not be fulfilled if we squander the opportunity.
+
+Perek 9
+
+Daniel's Tefillah of Perek 9
+
+Daniel passionately prays for the redemption of Yerushalayim in Perek 9. We incorporate much of his beautiful Tefillah in the Tachanun of Mondays and Thursdays. What prompted him to recite this Tefillah?
+Pesukim 2 and 3 suggest that Daniel realizes that the time of the seventy-year redemption has arrived, but yet Daryavesh HaMadi has done nothing to allow the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash. Therefore, Daniel calls out in Tefillah, accompanied by fasting, to Hashem in a plea to bring about the redemption. Yirmiyahu HaNavi (Yirmiyahu 29:12-13) indeed teaches that Hashem redeems us after seventy years only if we reach out to him in Tefillah.
+Connecting Perek 6 and Perek 9
There does seem to be a connection between Daniel Perek 6 and Daniel Perek 9 as these are the only Perakim in Sefer Daniel to occur during the reign of Daryavesh HaMadi. Rav Yaakov Medan thinks that Perek 9 of Daniel records the Tefillah Daniel prayed when disregarding the “no prayer” decree described in Perek 6.
+As an alternative to Rav Medan’s approach, I suggest a different connection. Despite Daryavesh HaMadi having witnessed the extraordinary miracle of Daniel being saved from the lion’s den, and even having promulgated letters throughout his empire recognizing Hashem’s supremacy, he did not permit us to return. One can only imagine that Daniel, Daryavesh HaMadi’s top advisor, strongly encouraged the latter to permit us to return.
+As such, Daniel’s Tefillah of Perek 9 is a Tefillah following his rescue from the lion’s den, asking for Hashem to eliminate Daryavesh HaMadi and replace him with a Persian emperor with a more pro-Jewish mindset who will permit the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael. This is Koresh.
+Koresh vs. Daryavesh HaMadi
This idea reminds us of Hashem in 1945 eliminating Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was not receptive to the Zionist movement, and replacing him with Harry Truman whose best friend was Eddie Jacobson, a Zionist Jew who served with Truman during World War One. Harry Truman introduced himself to Jewish audiences as “I am Cyrus, I am Cyrus!” As a child, Truman’s mother presented him a book that told of 12 great all-time heroes. Among these 12 figures was Cyrus! Is this Hashem’s subtle hand quietly at work? I think so.
+Hashem seems to have responded to Daniel’s Tefillah. Rashi to Daniel 6:29 notes that Daryavesh HaMadi dies in battle in the midst of the first year of his reign and is succeeded by his son-in-law Koresh.
+Daniel 6:29 teaches that Daniel remains a top advisor (and perhaps even the top advisor as he was with Daryavesh HaMadi) to Koresh. It is most reasonable to assume that Daniel, as Eddie Jacobson did with Harry Truman, encouraged Koresh to permit us to return to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash.
+Conclusion - Daryavesh HaMadi Replaced by Koresh
In the first year of his reign, Koresh indeed permits us to return. Koresh may have been affected by the respective deaths of Belshatzar and Daryavesh HaMadi for their various levels of disrespect for Hashem. While Belshatzar outrightly disrespected Hashem and died, Daryavesh failed to realize his mission to facilitate our return home to Eretz Yisrael and was punished. Koresh, we surmise, permitted the Jews to return since he did not want the same fate to befall himself.
+
+Why Build Bayit Sheini?
+
+Rashi to Daniel Perek 9 Pasuk 24 (following Chazal – Nazir 32b) explains that Daniel Perek 9 Pesukim 23-27 refers to Churban Bayit Sheini. The term “Shavu’im Shiv’im” that appears in Pasuk 24 is understood by Rashi/Chazal as referring to the 70 years from Churban Bayit Rishon to Binyan Bayit Sheini plus the 420 years Chazal say Bayit Sheini stood.
+This leads to an astounding point – Bayit Sheini was destined/doomed to fail! Moreover, the Gemara (Nazir 32b) seems to say that the Jews of Bayit Sheini were aware of this interpretation of Daniel 9:23-27!
+Malbim (to Pasuk 24 s.v. Shavu’im Shiva) insists that the decree was reversible through Teshuva. Year 420 post Binyan Bayit Sheini is “performance review” time when Hashem will assess whether we deserve the Churban. Thus, destiny and poor choices (Sinat Chinam – Yoma 9b) caused Churban Bayit Sheini – reminiscent of Menei, Menei, Tekal Ufarsin.
+Rav Yaakov Medan presents an alternative explanation of Daniel 9:23-27.
+We might suggest another way of calculating the redemption in accordance with the "shavu'im shiv'im" in our chapter. If we count the "shavu'im" as days rather than years, the angel is confirming for Daniel that the return to Tzion and the beginning of the rebuilding of the Temple will take place during the coming year (490 days are approximately one year and 4 months). The total count arrived at if we add "shavu'im shiv'im," "shavu'im shiv'a," and "shavu'im shishim u-shenayim" is almost three years, and this may allude to the three-year reign of Cyrus, who is referred to by Yishayahu (end of chapter 44 and beginning of 45) as "mashiach." The death of Cyrus, the "mashiach," heralded a difficult period for Am Yisrael, as alluded to by Daniel in the final verses of his vision.
+Adding to Rav Medan
A careful examination of Nazir 32b leads us to conclude that the Gemara does not mean that Churban Bayit Sheini is inevitable. Rather, it is saying that it is possible. The Pasuk presented in regards to the destruction of Bayit Rishon is Yirmiyahu’s (Yirmiyahu Perek 7) rejection of the mindset that “Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem Heimah!” - the idea that Hashem will never let His “earthly home” be destroyed. Yirmiyahu HaNavi endeavors to dispel this notion, teaching that the destruction of the Mishkan at Shilo teaches that our sins can lead to the destruction of Hashem’s home! The Beit HaMikdash is not “too big to fail”.
+Thus, the interpretation of “Shavu’im Shivim” as predicting the destruction of Bayit Sheini after 420 years, cited by the Gemara in regard to Churban Bayit Sheini, is not a fait accompli. It sets forth the possibility but not inevitability that the Beit HaMikdash will be destroyed.
+In other words, the Gemara’s interpretation of “Shavu’im Shivim” is not the only possible interpretation of the term. Had we acted better, the second Beit HaMikdash would not have been destroyed. This would not have been only a result of Teshuva overcoming the negative decree. It could also be that the term “Shavu’im Shivim” would then be interpreted in a manner not predicting Churban, such as Rav Medan’s approach.
+These alternate interpretations are similar to Rashi’s explanation of Yonah (Yonah’s 3:4) warning Nineveh that in forty days it will be “Nehepachet”. Rashi notes that the word “Nehepachet” (overturned) may be understood in one of two ways: either it means “destroyed” as the word is used in the context of the destruction of Sedom, or it could mean that it will “turn over”, as in the phrase “turn over a new leaf”, or a complete reversal of behavior as in the phrase "VeNahaphoch Hu" from Megillat Esther (9:1).
+In other words, by Yonah using the word “Nehepachet”, he communicates to Nineveh that they have the opportunity to create their own destiny. Their destiny is either to be destroyed or change. It is up to Nineveh as to which outcome they wish to occur.
+In Sefer Daniel, the flexibility of the term “Shavu’im Shivim” serves the same role as Yirmiyahu’s warning. It warns us that Churban Bayit Sheini is a possible result of our poor behavior.
+This is very similar to the interpretation of (Vayikra 16:3; see Rashi thereupon citing from Vayikra Rabbah 21:9) “B’Zot Yavo Aharon El HaKodesh”, that the Gematria equivalent of the word B’Zot is 410, predicting that the first Beit Hamikdash will exist for 410 years. This interpretation does not imply that Churban Bayit Rishon was inevitable. Rather, it teaches a possible interpretation of this phrase which opens the possibility of Churban.
+Bayit Sheini Same as Bayit Rishon
The following two sources suggest that Bayit Sheini enjoyed the same potential as Bayit Rishon. Berachot 4a teaches that our second entry to Eretz Yisrael (during the time of Ezra) was supposed to be as glorious and grand as the first entry (during the time of Yehoshua). However, our lowered spiritual state during Ezra’s time did not allow for this positive promise to be realized. This Gemara seems to indicate that Bayit Sheini held the same promise as Bayit Rishon.
+At the other end, Yoma 9b records that Bayit Rishon was destroyed due to violation of the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry, and illicit relations and that the second Beit HaMikdash was destroyed due to Sinat Chinam. This Gemara indicates that both Bayit Rishon and Bayit Sheini held equal promise to last forever. Both were destroyed due to spiritual inadequacies but not due to a destined fall. Had Bayit Sheini been destined to fall, we would have expected the Gemara to say that the second Beit HaMikdash fell due to its predetermined termination date and spiritual flaws.
+Perspectives on the Arba Malchuyot
The approach we are articulating may be applied to Rav Chaim ibn Galippe’s interpretation of the Arba Malchuyot. Ibn Galippe understands all of Sefer Daniel’s visions as not extending beyond the time of Bayit Sheini. The Malchut Hashem that will last forever is the era that the Chashmonaim were supposed to usher in. However, the spiritual fall of the Hasmonean dynasty did not allow this promise to be fulfilled. Daniel’s vision, like all Nevu’ah as stated by Tosafot (Yevamot 50a s.v. Teida), applies only if we are worthy of its realization. Both Rav Yaakov Medan and Da’at Mikra champion this approach as Peshuto Shel Mikra.
+It is possible that Ibn Galippe’s approach was the original intent of the Nevu’ah. However, since we proved to be unworthy, the promise was deferred to later generations. The intended message for Sefer Daniel’s original audience was the promise of the Hasmonean kings. However, due to their failures the vision was deferred to later generations.
+This deferral reminds us of Malbim’s approach to the Messianic visions set forth by Yishayahu HaNavi. Malbim explains that the visions set forth by Yishayahu in Perakim 2, 7, and 11 refer to Chizkiyahu HaMelech. However, due to his failure to thank Hashem for the great miracle ending the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (see Sanhedrin 94a), Yishayahu’s vision is deferred to a more worthy candidate in a later generation.
+Chazal, subsequent to the downfall of the Hasmoneans, understand that the fourth of the Arba Malchuyot is Rome and that Mashi’ach will arrive when the Roman Empire ends. When that potential redemption failed to materialize, Rashi explains the fourth Malchut to apply to Christian dominance.
+In other words, the Mefarshim interpret the Arba Malchuyot in a manner appropriate to their times. In more modern times, when the dominance of the Church has waned, we can interpret the Arba Malchuyot in a manner appropriate to our times. Some now are inclined to embrace Ibn Ezra’s view that Yishma’el represents the fourth kingdom. However one understands the Nevu’ot and visions, their promise will be realized only when we deserve its realization. The promise at each stage of interpretation could have been realized but we did not rise to the occasion and seize each of these opportunities.
+In light of our understanding of “Shavu’im Shivim”, there is another approach to Ibn Gallipe’s interpretation. It may be seen as setting forth an option for the original audience. If we prove worthy during the Hasmonean era, the great promises will be realized. However, since other interpretations abound, the promise of the Messianic era will be deferred to a later date in line with the other interpretations, if we are deemed by Hashem as unworthy of the ultimate redemption.
+Conclusion
Daniel’s Nevu’ot do not at all presume the destined destruction of the second Beit HaMikdash. The second Beit HaMikdash was supposed to serve as “Reishit Tzemichat Ge’ulateinu”, the beginning of the dawn of our deliverance to be realized during the time of the Chashmona’im. Only due to our failures did the second Beit HaMikdash fall. Bayit Sheini was not destined to fail. We failed.
+Nevu’ah does not allow us to abdicate responsibility. Just the opposite, Nevu’ah raises our awareness of our potential and we must make every effort to elevate ourselves individually and communally, in order to merit the realization of our lofty promise.
+Postscript Number One - Original Audience and All Generations
Rashi (to Chullin 137a) states that every Nevu’ah (save for the unique Nevu’ah of Moshe Rabbeinu) is intended “for the needs of the time, the generation and situation.” On the other hand, the Gemara (Megilla 14a) famously says that only the Nevu’ot that are needed for each generation are recorded. Both statements are true.
+The Midrash Tehillim (Mizmor 18) teaches that David’s Tehillim were written for himself, the community of his time and for all generations. The same applies to each Nevu’ah. The same may be said about Daniel’s visions. They were tailored for more immediate concerns as well as the concerns of all generations. It is in this light that we must understand all Nevu’ot and visions including those of Daniel.
+ Postscript Number Two
Our discussion sheds light on the Mishna (Yoma 18b) which records the Tanach Sefarim read to the not-so-scholarly Kohanim Gedolim throughout the night of Yom Kippur (when they are forbidden to sleep). The Tanna Kamma records that we read Iyov, Ezra, and Divrei HaYamim to the Kohein Gadol. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’Iyov) explains that these Sefarim are riveting, will capture the Kohen Gadol’s attention, and will keep him from falling asleep. The Mishna concludes citing Zecharia ben Kevutal who reports that many times he read Sefer Daniel before the Kohen Gadol.
+Rav Pinchas Kehati, in his elucidation of this Mishna, cites Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman’s explanation that sometimes the Kohen Gadol was so ignorant he did not even know Hebrew and had to be told Daniel which contains seven chapters in Aramaic. A problem, however, with this explanation is that a considerable portion of Ezra is written in Aramaic. Moreover, Sefer Daniel is quite riveting. It is very difficult to understand why the Tanna Kama does not include Sefer Daniel among the Sefarim read to the ignorant Kohen Gadol.
+We offer an explanation in light of our discussion. The Tanna Kama believes that we should not read Sefer Daniel to the Kohen Gadol since Jewish survival in Galut is its dominant theme. Moreover, it even includes a predicted time of the demise of Bayit Sheini! Sefer Daniel, accordingly, hardly serves to fortify the heart of the Kohen Gadol through the wee hours of Yom Kippur night!
+The dominant themes of Sefer Ezra and Sefer Divrei HaYamim, on the other hand, are the rebuilding of the second Beit HaMikdash. These Sefarim are brimming with optimism encouraging the Jews of the challenging time of Bayit Sheini. Even Sefer Iyov, in its entirety, presents the uplifting message of Iyov, at the Sefer’s conclusion, transforming a horrific situation into significant gains for himself and his family.
+Zecharia ben Kevutal, on the other hand, testifies that Sefer Daniel is the perfect Sefer for the less than scholarly Kohen Gadol to hear on the night of Yom Kippur. Daniel, especially in its warning of a possible date of Churban Bayit Sheini, serves a potent and sobering reminder to the Kohen Gadol of the profound responsibility resting on his shoulders on this holiest day of the year.
+Zecharia ben Kevutal’s appearance in the Mishna suggests that he lived toward the end of Bayit Sheini. Specifically at the time period, as the year of Churban Bayit Sheini was rapidly approaching, the warning of Sefer Daniel loomed large and needed to be brought front and center to the Kohen Gadol. Such is the power of the dramatic testimony of Zecharia ben Kevutal.
+
+Perakim 10 11 12
+
+Making Sense of Daniel Perakim 10 11 12
+
+It is very difficult to grasp the messages of the last six Perakim of Sefer Daniel. This is especially true regarding the last three Perakim. Let us do our best to try to decipher these challenging Perakim.
+Daniel’s Deep Upset in Year Three of Koresh
In the beginning of Perek 10 we find Daniel deeply upset in the third year of Koresh’s rule. It is surprising that Daniel is so sad at what should be a very happy time for Daniel and our people. Koresh permitted us to return to Eretz Yisrael and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash only two years before, and the Shivat Tzion had begun to gain some traction.
+Rashi (10:1 s.v. Hayiti Mitabeil) explains that in year three Koresh had revoked his permission to allow us to return and rebuild. He had been pressured by the Samaritans to rescind his permission for the Jews to return and rebuild.
+Daniel was deeply upset by this. Despite his high rank in Koresh’s administration his influence was to no avail. Daniel 10:4 makes it clear that Daniel remained in Galut and did not return to his homeland when Cyrus granted us permission to return. Daniel presumably wished to remain in exile in order to be in a position to help the Jews as a high advisor to Cyrus. Daniel’s upset might be magnified by the fact that his remaining in Chutz LaAretz was for naught.
+The Response of the Malach
An unnamed Malach (presumably Gavriel, who appeared to Daniel in Perek 8) appears to Daniel and informs him that his concerns have been heard and that he should strengthen himself. This portion of the Malach’s speech (that appears in Perek 10) serves as a lead-in to the portion that appears in Perek 11.
+In the portion of his response that appears in Daniel Perek 11, after a very brief mention of the three Persian kings who will follow Koresh, the Malach presents in excruciating detail the era of the Greek empire. He describes the intrigue and strife that emerged in the wake of Alexander the Great dying at age 33 without having named a successor. His empire is divided into four sections among Cassander, Ptolemy, Antigonus, and Seleucus (known as the Diadochi or 'successors'). The Malach describes the intrigues and struggles between the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms and Antiochus’ efforts to eradicate Torah observance. The Malach tells of Antiochus’ embrace of the Jews who abandon the Torah and the suffering he imposes on those who remain steadfast in their Torah commitment.
+Finally, in the portion of the Malach’s speech that appears in Perek 12, he describes how the faithful will merit the miracle of Techiyat HaMeitim but the detractors from Torah will not. In the long run, only the Torah observant Jew prevails. The Jews who abandon the Torah path are lost.
+Understanding the Malach’s Response
There seems to be an enormous problem with the Malach’s response. How does his very long description of the Greek Empire address Daniel’s deep anguish concerning Koresh rescinding his decree? We would have expected the Malach to encourage Daniel by telling him about the Persian Daryavesh permitting us to resume the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash, yet he did not.
+We believe that the basis of the answer lies with two incredibly important words uttered by the Malach (Daniel 12:12) “Ashrei HaMechakeh”, happy is the one with the patience to wait”. The Malach teaches Daniel, and Jews for all generations, to adjust their vision. They should not view Jewish life as a “sprint” but rather a long marathon. A Jew must be patient. A Jew must know how to wait.
+Even the Halacha promotes waiting. Waiting to become “Chalavi” before eating dairy is a daily part of Jewish life. We wait for marriage and then married couples wait for the Mikveh immersion. Patience is very much part and parcel of who we are.
+The Malach is telling Daniel to be patient. Advances and reversals are part and parcel of Jewish life until the Mashi’ach arrives. Daniel must not despair from Koresh’s retraction; it is simply part of Jewish life. “Ashrei HaMechakeh” - happy is the one who has patience and knows how to deal with disappointment. The disappointments will be temporary, and in the long run those faithful to Torah will emerge triumphant.
+The Malach teaches Daniel that a very, very long road lies ahead. The lesson that emerges is the wonderful song, Am LaNetzach Lo Mephacheid MiDerech Arukah, an eternal nation does not fear a long road. The Malach gives Daniel and us the fortitude to withstand the long road.
+Conclusion - Daniel’s Response
It is most interesting that Sefer Daniel at the conclusion does not record Daniel’s response to the Malach’s very long speech. Perhaps Daniel’s statement, recorded in Daniel 10:19, that he drew strength from the Malach’s words, is his response. Daniel was strengthened by the Malch’s words and so are faithful Jews of all generations. As Rav Pam relates about Jews, being led by the evil Nazis to the gas chambers, who chanted “Mir Zennen Zei Ibberleben”, we shall outlive them! Am LaNetzach Lo Mephached MiDerech Aruka, since we are assured of our victory in the end.
+
+When Was Sefer Daniel Introduced to the Jewish Community?
+
+TABC Talmid Yaakov Abrahams poses a very poignant question. Sefer Daniel reveals some very significant information about future events. Perakim 8 and 11 both explicitly discuss the Greek conquest of the Persian Empire. The events of Perek 11 are fairly transparent about the activities of Alexander the Great and his successor kingdoms. Even the events surrounding Chanukah, an evil Seleucid king trying to eliminate Torah observance, who attracts some from the Jewish Hellenizers yet is resisted by those loyal to Torah, are pretty apparent from Perek 11.
+Yaakov raises the big issue - were we aware of these events before they occurred? It would seem highly counterintuitive to say that we were.
+Malbim about Sefer Tehillim
Malbim in his introduction to Sefer Tehillim notes the seeming incongruity of the opinions that believe all of Sefer Tehillim were composed during the time of David HaMelech (see Pesachim 117a and Bava Batra 14b-15a) with the Mizmorim of Tehillim describing the weeping on the rivers of Babylon and the joy of the return to Zion (Mizmorim 137 and 126 respectively). Does this mean the Jews from the time of David HaMelech knew of the Babylonian exile and the return centuries before it occurred?
+Malbim explains that although on a Peshat level one may argue that these Mizmorim were written after these events occurred, on a Derash-Remez-Kabbalistic level we understand that all of the Tehillim were composed during the time of David HaMelech. The Mizmorim that address future events, explains the Malbim, were transmitted to a very select group of Talmidei Chachamim and handed down generation to generation. These hidden Mizmorim were revealed to our broader nation only after the events occurred.
+Sefer Daniel
We may say the same for Sefer Daniel or at least the second half of the Sefer which presents the many visions experienced by Daniel. Daniel 12:4 records the Malach instructing Daniel to hide and seal this revelation until the appointed time. Ibn Ezra (ad. loc.) explains that the Sefer is meant to be hidden until it is “fit to be seen”. Presumably Ibn Ezra means “until it is fit to be seen by the broader public”. Da’at Mikra (ad. loc.) notes the similarity to the instruction given to Yeshayahu (8:16) who is told “Tzor Te’udah, Chatom Torah B’Limudai”. Such instruction is particularly relevant to Yeshayahu who is told approximately two centuries in advance about Koresh permitting us to return to Eretz Yisrael (Yeshayahu Perek 45).
+This idea of not revealing highly sensitive Torah material appears in Chagigah 13a which teaches that “Sitrei Torah”, secrets of the Torah, should be revealed only to an extremely restricted audience. We find the idea of restricted information in Halachic contexts as well in Kiddushin 71a and Chullin 15a. Even today, we find similar expressions today such as in the context of announcing to the community that the Eruv is broken in the middle of Shabbat (Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 17 note 139).
+Sefer Daniel Fully Revealed
It is not clear, however, when Sefer Daniel was revealed in its entirety to the broader Jewish community. Bava Batra 15a states that the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah wrote Sefer Daniel. This assertion seems difficult in light of Daniel 7:1 noting that Daniel recorded the vision described in Perek 7. Daniel 12:4 records instructions to seal the visions in a book. Accordingly, Bava Batra 15a may be understood as saying that the Anshei Keneset HaGedolah edited Sefer Daniel and formally admitted it to the Kitvei HaKodesh.
+However, the period of the Anshei Kenesset HaGedola ended at the very early stages of the Greek Empire. The Mishna (Avot 1:2) presents Shimon HaTzadik as among the last surviving members of the Anshei Kenesset HaGedolah and the Rambam in his introduction to his Mishneh Torah understands this to mean the very last surviving member of this very illustrious body. The Gemara (Yoma 69a) describes Shimon HaTzadik encountering Alexander the Great. Thus, the Anshei Kenesset HaGedola did not live during the time of much of the events fairly clearly described in Daniel Perek 11.
+Accordingly, it would seem that Sefer Daniel, at least in its entirety, was not revealed to the broader Jewish community even during the time of the Anshei Kenesset HaGedolah. One could, however, counter that the information in Perek 11 is sufficiently veiled that it would be understood only after the events occurred. We, to whom the Chanuka story is well known, easily understand the references. However, it might not have been clear before these events occurred.
+Conclusion
The contents of much of Sefer Daniel were not revealed to the broader Jewish community until at least the time of the Anshei Kenesset HaGedolah. It may not have been fully revealed until after the events of Chanukah occurred.
+
+Conclusion
+
+Will Orthodox Judaism Survive?
+
+A Talmid a few years ago asked me point blank whether I thought Orthodox Judaism will last or will just wither away into the general society – he thought Orthodox Judaism had no chance.
+I responded that the struggle our generation faces is the same faced by every Jewish generation. In every generation there are Jews who sadly decide they will not run counter to the prevailing cultural winds. The Malach informs Daniel of this sad fact in Perek 11. Tragically, large numbers of Jews abandoned their eternal legacy and succumbed to the temporary glory of the Greek Empire, as foretold by the Malach to Daniel.
+However, for more than three thousand years Torah has been maintained by those who muster the courage to stand apart. Our choice is whether to stand in the proud tradition of Avraham Avinu, Daniel, Chanania, Mishael, Azariah, Mordechai, the Chasmonaim upholding Torah, and Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Soloveitchik upholding Orthodoxy in the twentieth century.
+In the 1950’s there was talk of the vanishing Orthodox Jew. Today Orthodoxy is the only group of Jews growing in numbers.
+Sefer Daniel concludes with Techiyat HaMeitim, the revival of the dead. Ibn Ezra (to Daniel 12:2) cites an opinion that sees this revival as also alluding to the revival of the Jewish people returning to their land after a long exile. We add that it also alludes to the revival of Torah observance of many eras including our own. In the 1950’s, the community of Torah learners was tiny. Today it is, Baruch Hashem, burgeoning with exponential growth.
+Our choice is whether to take hold of Torah and eternity or succumb to the prevailing winds. Only by fully embracing Torah Hashkafa and observance do we plug into Jewish eternity.
+Sefer Daniel inspires us to steadfastly maintain our grip on the eternal Torah despite any and all pressure to abandon it!!! It provides the proven path to Jewish eternity.
+
+Acknowledgements
+
+A cynic once commented that a commentary to Tanach can either be beautiful or faithful to the text but not both. While this statement is not entirely true it does capture the challenge faced by those who deliver Tanach Shiurim. Our listeners, on the one hand, demand our Shiurim represent an authentic approach to the learning. On the other hand, they expect the Shiurim to be beautiful and inspiring and that they emerge with a message that elevates them and enhances their lives as Jews. The constant struggle and challenge faced by Torah educators is the never-ending pursuit of Shiurim that succeed in being both faithful and beautiful.
+There is one more ingredient to a successful Shiur. Chazal teach that “Ein Beit Midrash Bli Chiddush”, proper Torah learning includes novel approaches and ideas. In other words, for a Shiur to be successful, the Maggid Shiur must not simply repeat what was said by others. He must inject his own personality and insights into the learning.
+The recipe for a successful Shiur is therefore hours of preparation and deep thought. It does not matter how many years one has delivered a Shiur on a particular topic. In order for compelling learning to emerge, enormous effort must be invested. Only with maximum effort and the support of Hashem can success be achieved, in line with the Gemara’s (Megilla 6b) teaching Yagata Umatzata Ta’amin (effort and success go hand in hand).
+I have been privileged to teach Sefer Daniel no less than five times at Torah Academy of Bergen County. The students’ relentless questioning, high expectations, and brilliant insights have created a very high bar for which I have invested my all to satisfy. The book we present to our readers “Opportunity in Exile” is the product of the thousands of hours of hard work, deep thinking and intense davening invested to create beautiful and faithful interpretations of Sefer Daniel. I hope it will inspire Jews throughout the world to appreciate the majesty of Sefer Daniel and the treasures that are just waiting to be revealed and discovered. In particular, I hope it will help Rabbanim and Mechanchim in their quest to deliver inspiring and compelling Shiurim on Sefer Daniel to their congregants and Talmidim.
+The Gilad and Amar family are critical to the creation of this book. Avi Gilad zt”l was the first to encourage me to think out-of-the-box and to teach Sefer Daniel to high school students. His idea was very on target and has led to great success in the Beit Midrash and classroom. It has even created compelling and very enjoyable learning through the difficulty of isolation during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Avi’s wife Ruth and children Rebecca, Erez, Leah, Yosef, David, and Yoni have completed the task by enabling us to bring our success in learning to the entire Torah loving world.
+James Gershfield, in his dedicated and punctilious style, has elevated my writings on Sefer Daniel into the high-quality work that “Opportunity in Exile” has become. I am grateful for his important contribution.
+Many TABC students and alumni are cited in this volume. It is such a pleasure and honor to cite the insights of so many students, especially from the past three years. I thank all of them for partnering in the most noble pursuit in life – to be able to extract the lessons Hashem is expressing in His holy Torah.
+I thank Rav Yosef Adler, Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Academy and Rav of Congregation Rinat Yisrael for his constant encouragement over the past twenty-six years at TABC. Torah Academy’s Head of School Rav Shlomo Adelman is due an enormous debt of gratitude for his unending kindness and support.
+The breakfast table in the Torah Academy faculty lounge is a treasure of our Yeshiva. I can always rely on a significant discussion amongst the Rebbeim concerning the issues in Sefer Daniel which yields invaluable and enriching insights. I thank my wonderful colleagues for providing such a spiritually nourishing environment.
+I thank Hashem for the privilege of serving as the Rav of Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck. The formal and informal Torah discussions at Shaarei Orah are among my sweetest memories. May Hashem continue to send us many more years of beautiful Tefillah, Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim together. Special thank you to Heidi and Jack Varon for serving for so many years as the dedicated pillars of this wonderful Kehillah.
+I thank Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz, the Av Beit Din of Elizabeth, for adopting me into his family and allowing me to serve as a Dayan with the Beth Din of Elizabeth since 1993. With Rav Teitz’ wise guidance the Beth Din of Elizabeth has flourished and achieved a stellar international reputation for balancing uncompromised fidelity to Halacha and sensitivity to human needs with its work in the fields of Get and Eruv administration.
+I thank my wife Malca for providing a loving and happy environment in our house. She is the source of the happiness and joy of our home where our children (and in-law child) Bracha, Yisroel, Binyamin, Chaya Ziporah, Atara and Hillel grow and flourish with Hashem’s help. May our grandson Shmuel David follow in his parents’ Bracha and Yisroel’s wonderful path! My many Shiurim and writings easily flow in abundance due to the joyful environment Malca has created in our home. The accolade Rabi Akiva bestowed upon his family “Sheli VeShelachem Shelah Hi,” “my learning and your learning is all due to her”, applies at least in equal measure to Malca.
+May this work serve Le’ilui Nishmat, to elevate the souls of my parents Ben and Shirley Jachter a”h. Although they never had the opportunity to know their daughter-in-law Malca, grandchildren and great grandchild, I am certain that they would have been enormously pleased with their complete dedication to Torah and high-quality character.
+May this work serve Le’ilui Nishmat my father-in-law Rav Shmuel Tokayer zt”l and a source of comfort and support to my dedicated mother-in-law Mrs. Chana Tokayer. May Hashem extend her much Bracha and great support and kindness as she extends great support and kindness to all of her children and grandchildren.
+Most of all, I thank Hashem for fulfilling my dreams to be blessed with a loving spouse and children, and to spend a life immersed in Kedushah, holy projects. As a young man I dreamed of teaching Torah to teenagers, leading a friendly and warm Kehillah, contributing to Am Yisrael as a Dayan and publishing valued works of Torah. Thank you, Hashem, for transforming all of these aspirations into reality. Thank you, Hashem, for facilitating such a large and loyal readership, way beyond any dreams I harbored. “Mah Ashiv LaHashem Kol Tagmulohi Alai”, I am overwhelmed with the enormous gratitude to which I owe our Creator (Tehillim 116:12). May it be His Will to continue bestowing all these blessings for many decades to come.
+Chaim Jachter
+16 Menachem Av 5781
+Teaneck, New Jersey
+
+Glossary
+
+When discussing Jewish topics, it is natural to use certain Hebrew words to describe the ideas being discussed. However, readers of this book who are not familiar with these Hebrew words may have difficulty understanding the text.
+This Glossary explains the meaning of the transliterated Hebrew words and is being included to help readers better understand the discussions within the text.
+Adam HaRishon The first man (the ancestor of all human beings)
+Aliya Traveling to the land of Israel (literally, "going up")
+Amida Silent prayer said while standing
+Ani Maamin Literally "I believe"
+Anshei Kenesset HaGedola The Men of the Great Assembly
+Arba Malchuyot The four kingdoms
+Avdei The slaves of
+Avdut Slavery
+Aveirot Sins, or transgressions
+Avinu Our father, or Our ancestor
+Avinu Malkeinu Our Father, Our King
+Avoda Zara Idol worship (literally, "strange worship")
+Avot Fathers
+Avraham Abraham
+B’Derech Hateva In the way of nature
+B’yechidut Alone
+Ba’alei Hashkafa Masters of philosophical outlook
+Ba’alei Keriah People who know how to read the holy writings during synagogue services
+Barad Hail (one of the ten plagues in Egypt)
+Baruch Hashem Praised Be Hashem
+Baruch Hashem Yom Yom Blessed be God every day
+Batei Knesset Synagogues
+Bavel Babylonia
+Bayit Sheini The second House (Temple)
+Bechira Chofshit Free choice
+Beit Din A rabbinic court
+Beit Midrash A house of study, or a study hall
+Bereishit The Book of Genesis
+Berit Bein HaBetarim The Covenant between the parts
+Bnei Yisrael The nation of Israel, literally "the children of Israel"
+Bracha A blessing, recited as a prayer
+Chalavi Permitted to eat dairy food
+Chas V’Shalom Heaven forbid
+Chazal The Jewish Sages
+Cheilek A portion
+Cheirut Freedom
+Chillul Hashem The opposite of Kiddush Hashem
+Chillul Shabbat Desecration of the Shabbat (the Sabbath)
+Chukim Laws
+Churban Destruction (of the Temple)
+Churban Bayit Rishon The destruction of the first House (Temple)
+Churban Shilo The destruction of Shilo
+Chutz LaAretz Outside the land (of Israel)
+Daven Pray
+Davening Praying
+De'oraita Of the Torah
+Eishet Potiphar The wife of Potiphar
+Eit Ratzon A favorable time
+Eretz Yisrael The Land of Israel
+Galut Exile
+Gaon An honorific title for the head of one of the Babylonian Jewish academies
+Geulah Redemption
+Gevurah Strength
+Gezeira A rule meant to prevent a serious transgression of a law
+Gilui Arayot Prohibited intimate relationships
+Hagada The book that is read at the Seder on the first night(s) of Passover
+HaNavi The prophet
+Hashem Literally "The Name", meaning God
+Hashgacha Peratit Divine providence
+Hashkafa Outlook, or philosophical perspective
+Hilchot Melachim The laws of kings
+Imeinu Our mother
+Kal Vachomer An "a fortiori" argument; "even more so"
+Kashrut Jewish religious laws regarding which foods may be eaten
+Keilim Vessels
+Keitz The end of an era
+Ketuvim Writings (the third major section of the Jewish Bible)
+Kevod Malchut The honor of kingship
+Kiddush Hashem Sanctification of God's Name
+Korbanot Animal sacrifices
+L’Havdil As distinguished from
+Luchot Tablets (of stone)
+Machloket A disagreement
+Maggid Shiur The teacher of a class
+Makkot Plagues
+Malach An angel
+Malchut Hashem The Kingdom of God
+Masechet A Tractate (of the Talmud)
+Mashiach The Messiah (literally, the "Anointed One")
+Medinat Yisrael The State of Israel
+Mechanchim Teachers
+Mefarshim Commentators
+Mekorot Sources
+Melech King
+Melech HaMashi’ach The Anointed King
+Melech Yehuda The King of (the kingdom of) Judah
+Middot Tovot Good behavioral traits
+Midrash Biblical Exegesis
+Midrashim Exegetical writings
+Migdal Bavel Tower of Babel
+Mishneh LaMelech The name of a commentary on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah
+Mishpatim Laws
+Mitzrayim Egypt
+Mitzvot Commandments, or Good Deeds
+Mizmor Psalm
+Mizmorim The plural of Mizmor
+Navi A prophet
+Neder A vow
+Neis A miracle
+Neis B’Toch Neis A miracle within a miracle
+Neshama Soul
+Nevi’im Prophets
+Nevi’ot Female Prophets
+Nevu’ah Prophecy
+Nevu’ot Prophecies
+Nissim Miracles
+Okimta An exegetical technique for resolving conflicting sources
+Olam Haba The world to come
+Pashtanim Commentators who focus on the plain meaning of words in the text
+Pasuk A verse
+Perakim Chapters
+Perek A chapter
+Peshat Simple meaning of words in the text
+Pesukim Verses
+Pirkei Avot Chapters of the Fathers
+Piyut Religious poem
+Ra’ayah Proof
+Rabbeinu Our teacher
+Rambam Maimonides
+Ramban Nachmanides
+Rav Rabbi
+Rebbeim Rabbis
+Rosh Yeshiva Head of the Yeshiva (School Principal)
+Ru’ach HaKodesh Spirit of Holiness
+Sechar VaOnesh Reward and punishment
+Sefarim Religious books
+Sefer A religious book
+Sefer Mishlei The Book of Proverbs
+Shacharit The morning prayer
+Shavua A week (7 days)
+Shemot The Book of Exodus, literally "Names"
+Shevatim Tribes
+Shir Ha-Shirim The Song of Songs
+Shiur A class, or a study session
+Shiurim The plural of Shiur
+Shlomo HaMelech King Solomon
+Shofetim Judges
+Shomer Shabbat Someone who observes the laws of Shabbat (the Sabbath)
+S’neh The (burning) bush
+Sugya A discussion within the Gemara
+Talmid A student
+Talmidim Students
+Tanach The combined set of Torah, Prophets and Writings (the Jewish Bible)
+Techiyat HaMeitim Revival of the dead
+Tefillah Prayer
+Tefillot Prayers
+Teva Nature
+Timtum HaLev Spiritual contamination of the mind (literally, "contamination of the heart")
+Tosafot Medieval commentaries on the Talmud
+Tza’ar Suffering
+Tzara’at A surface disease
+Tzedaka Charity
+Tzefarde’im Frogs (one of the ten plagues in Egypt)
+Tzibbur Congregation
+vakma”l An abbreviation of Hebrew words meaning “This is not the place for an extended discussion of this topic”
+Vayakom melech chadash asher lo yada et Yosef A new king rose to power who did not know Joseph
+Vidui Confession prayer
+Yam Suf The Sea of Reeds, or the Red Sea
+Yamim Nora’im High Holidays (Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur)
+Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor Dying is preferable to violating a legal prohibition
+Yerushalmi The Jerusalem Talmud
+Yeshayahu Isaiah
+Yetzi’at Mitzrayim The Exodus from Egypt
+Zemer Song
\ No newline at end of file