Daniel · Chapter 1

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Now is it possible to say so? Did he [Nebuchadnezzar] not reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, as is stated (Jer. 25:1) “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah, king of Judah that is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar?” So what is the meaning of “In the third year?” In the third year of his rebellion, as is stated (II Kings 24:1): “and Jehoiakim was his vassal for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him”; and in the third year, he overcame him, and that was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, for the master said (Seder Olam ch. 24): In his first year he conquered Nineveh, and in his second year he advanced and vanquished Jehoiakim, who served him for three years and rebelled against him for three years. That was the eleventh year of the reign of Jehoiakim: five years before he vanquished him, three years that he served him, and three years that he rebelled against him. And then Jehoiakim died under his hand, and in his stead, Nebuchadnezzar enthroned Jehoiachin, his son.

The words of Abraham son of Rabbi Meir Ibn Ezra the Spaniard: this is the book of the man greatly beloved, in which weighty matters are told, and prophecies both past and future. Everything in it is stated concisely, in riddles, with secrets of the angels on high that rest upon their foundations — yet its commentators have not grasped its secret; each explained it only so far as his hand could reach, and all of them have stumbled over “a time, and times.” They have even confused the beasts for themselves, making the fourth one the third. Now I will begin to explain it according to the grammar of the language. In the third year – We find it written that Jehoiakim reigned eleven years; if so, what is the meaning of “in the third year of his reign”? Now, as to this matter of Josiah’s sons: it is written that he left four sons — the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And we find that when Josiah died, his son reigned in his place. Some of our sages, of blessed memory, said that this Jehoahaz is Johanan, who reigned only three months; his brother Jehoiakim then reigned in his place, being twenty-three years old. But Jehoahaz was younger than Jehoiakim — so how could Scripture call him (Johanan) “firstborn”? Therefore they said that he was “firstborn” with respect to the kingship (that is, first to actually reign), and they were then forced to say that Shallum is Zedekiah, because Jeremiah’s prophecy about Shallum stands next to his prophecy about Zedekiah. And further, that no one reigned over Israel after Zedekiah, and it would be a strange way for Scripture to count a fourth son merely by name, without substance — that is, without his ever actually having reigned. Now consider: Jehoahaz is in fact Shallum, and Johanan did not reign at all. Do not find it strange that he was called by two names, for behold, Solomon is also Kohelet; and Samuel’s sons were named Shemah and Abijah, yet elsewhere it is written that the first was Joel; and Amminadab is Izhar, and Uriel is Zephaniah, and there are many such cases. In the Torah, too, Zerah is Zohar. And the proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is this: when their father died, Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old, Zedekiah — the third son — was twenty-four, and Shallum was twenty-three; and so it is written that Jehoahaz is Shallum: “And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in place of Josiah his father.” There is a second proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz: it is written that Pharaoh Necho took him after he had reigned three months, and brought him to Egypt, where he died; and it is written in Jeremiah concerning Shallum, “who went forth from this place, he shall not return there again, for in the place where they have exiled him, there he shall die.” And do not be puzzled by the verse stated earlier, “The word that came to Jeremiah from Hashem, when King Zedekiah sent to him” — for the beginning of that passage is, “For thus said Hashem concerning the house of the king of Judah,” which recounts what Hashem had told him before Zedekiah’s reign. It goes on to tell what he prophesied to Jehoahaz — that is, Shallum — after they had brought him to Egypt; then it begins, “Woe to him who builds his house without righteousness,” concerning Jehoiakim; and there it is written that afterward he prophesied concerning Jehoiachin, as is stated there — and all three of these reigned before Zedekiah. And in the book of Ezekiel, where it says, “Take up a lament for the princes of Israel” — these are the kings who died, none of whose sons remained as king. It begins with Jehoahaz, who is Shallum, saying, “and they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt.” The young lion is Jehoiakim, whom the king of Egypt made king: “and they put him in a cage with hooks, and brought him to the king of Babylon” — and so it is written in Chronicles, “and they bound him with fetters of brass to carry him to Babylon.” Then afterward it laments over Jehoiachin, “a strong rod, consumed by fire”; and then it laments over Zedekiah, “and fire went out from a rod of her branches, which consumed her fruit, so that she has no strong rod to be a ruler’s scepter.” Now it has become clear that they brought Jehoiakim to Babylon. And let it not trouble you that it says “to carry him to Babylon” rather than “and they carried him,” for behold, it is written concerning Zedekiah in Jeremiah, “and bound him with fetters of brass, to bring him to Babylon,” while elsewhere it is written, “and bound him with fetters of brass, and brought him to Babylon.” Now it is written in Daniel: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it; and Hashem gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah, and some of the vessels of the house of Hashem, and he brought them to the land of Shinar.” The meaning is: he brought both Jehoiakim and the vessels to the house of his god, to bow down before it; and afterward it says, “and the vessels he brought to the treasure-house of his god.” It is not possible, grammatically, to explain “he brought them” as referring to the vessels alone, since Scripture separately states, “and the vessels he brought” — which would be redundant had the earlier clause already meant the vessels alone; hence it must include Jehoiakim as well. And it is written in Chronicles: “and bound him with fetters of brass, to carry him to Babylon; and some of the vessels of the house of Hashem Nebuchadnezzar brought to Babylon, and put them in his temple in Babylon.” And Jeremiah prophesies concerning Jehoiakim: “he shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” Therefore, whoever says that “the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” whom Pharaoh made king is really the third year of his rebellion against Babylon has erred. Therefore I found it necessary to explain that in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, whom Pharaoh had made king, Nebuchadnezzar came against him and besieged Jerusalem, and took it at the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar — for so it is written. He was carried off to Babylon and remained there in fetters of brass for about a year; then Nebuchadnezzar gave the order, and Jehoiakim returned to his kingdom. Jehoiakim was his servant for three years, then turned and rebelled against him; and Nebuchadnezzar, or his troops, came to Jerusalem, killed Jehoiakim, and dragged him out beyond the gates of Jerusalem, and his body lay cast out, unburied, just as Jeremiah had prophesied. And do not be puzzled by the phrase “and Jehoiakim slept with his fathers,” for it is likewise written, of Moses, “behold, you shall sleep with your fathers” (Deuteronomy 31:16), even though his own forefathers had died in Egypt. Jehoiachin his son then reigned three months, and Nebuchadnezzar seized him in the eighth year of his own reign, which was the eleventh year of Jehoiakim; and Zedekiah reigned eleven years, which came to the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, within the space of three months Jehoiakim was slain and Jehoiachin his son was exiled. And do not be puzzled that you find it written “in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar,” and likewise, concerning Zedekiah, “the eighteenth year” — for in counting the years of kings, reckonings vary this way and that. Do we not know that Jeroboam and Rehoboam began to reign in the same month? Yet it is written that Rehoboam reigned seventeen years, and that Abijah his son reigned in his place in the eighteenth year of Jeroboam. Let me explain this to you: one calculator reckons from the exodus from Egypt, counting from Nisan, while another reckons from the creation of the world, from Tishrei — and a single day within a year is counted as a year, counting from the day the king began to reign until the turning-point of his year; therefore what is really one year can appear as the eighteenth by one count and the nineteenth by another. The illustration: consider one born on Friday, before sunset, in a city that the text calls “redum” (an obscure or possibly corrupted place-name — not clearly identifiable) — at the summer solstice, when the day is a full sixteen hours long. The infant is to be circumcised on the morning of the following Friday, which, by the Torah’s reckoning, is the eighth day — yet in terms of actual elapsed time it is only the seventh day, not complete, but short by sixteen hours. And do not be puzzled by what you find in Ezekiel, “that they might bring him with snares, so that his voice should no longer be heard” — for so did Nebuchadnezzar’s servants reckon. And the meaning of “shall you reign,” which Jeremiah asked Jehoiakim, is: does the prophecy directed at him mean, “do you think your kingship will endure because you compete in building with cedar?” Now the difficult question remains: I have already mentioned that Zedekiah was twenty-four years old when his father died; so by the time of Jehoiakim’s death and Jehoiachin’s exile, he would have been thirty-five. Yet it is written, “Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign.” This reckoning of twenty-one reflects the fact that he was already called king three years before Josiah’s death, for it had become known among all the nations that Zedekiah had been made king — and the proof is what is written in Jeremiah: “In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, the word of Hashem came to Jeremiah,” that he should make bonds and send them to the kings of Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Tyre, by the hand of messengers who had come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah king of Judah — for these kings had heard that Josiah was slain, and thought that Zedekiah, whom they had made king when he was twenty-one, would reign in his place. And there is no argument against this from the reign of Jehoahaz, for the people of the land made him king, and these foreign kings did not hear of it, since he reigned only three months. There remains one more matter in the passage to explain: “and to Zedekiah king of Judah I spoke” — for behold, Jeremiah relates this matter of the yoke-bonds to Zedekiah at the time he actually reigned, after the exile of Jehoiachin, saying to him, “bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon”; and there it is written, “and it came to pass in that year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah.” And the meaning of “in the fourth year” is reckoned from when Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon. There is one proposed correction — that Jeremiah prepared the yoke-bonds at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign but sent them only in the first year of Zedekiah’s reign — but there is no good reason for this correction. There was a great commentator in Spain who wrote grammatically precise commentaries, and he explained, saying, that “Zedekiah” stands in place of “Jehoiakim”; and likewise he said that “and after Absalom he did not turn aside” really refers to Solomon; that “and it came to pass on the seventh day” really means the fourth; that “set bounds around the mountain” really means “the people”; and so with many other words, such as “two hundred” — and the wind carries them all away. For how could it be, linguistically, that a person would say one word and mean an entirely different one? Whoever says such a thing is to be counted among the madmen. I have already explained all of these passages myself, and it would be better for him to say, “I do not know,” than to distort the words of the living God.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim – That is, dated to his rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, when he sought to rule independently. For Nebuchadnezzar became king in Jehoiakim's fourth year, and in Jehoiakim's fifth year — Nebuchadnezzar's second — Nebuchadnezzar came up against him and conquered him; Jehoiakim served him three years, then turned and rebelled against him, as stated in II Kings. And in the third year of that rebellion, which was Jehoiakim's eleventh year, Nebuchadnezzar came up against him once more, as stated in II Chronicles.

And besieged (vayatzar) - From the term "matzor" (siege); its meaning is the encircling of an army around a city, in order to besiege it and conquer it.

The questions: (1–3) The contradiction with what is stated elsewhere, that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign, whereas Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until Jehoiakim's fourth year (this is explained in the commentary on the Book of Kings). Why does it say twice that he brought them to the house of his god, and then that he put the vessels in the treasure-house of his god? And why does it say twice “of the children of Israel” and “of the seed royal”? In the third year – This reckoning contradicts what is stated in Jeremiah (25:1), that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. For this reason our Sages, of blessed memory, explained “in the third year” as the third year of his rebellion [against Babylon], while Ibn Ezra explained that the close of the third year is really Jehoiakim's fourth year. One may say that Jehoiakim became king in Adar, and that a year was already reckoned to him once Nisan arrived, as is stated in Rosh Hashanah (2a), that the years of the kings of Israel are counted from Nisan: if he became king on the twenty-ninth of Adar, then as soon as the first day of Nisan came a year was credited to him, while the Chaldeans counted that same span as only his first year. There is yet another explanation of this, which I have already written in my commentary on Kings. And according to Ibn Ezra's explanation, Scripture is telling us that immediately upon becoming king Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem — even though in the days of Zedekiah the siege dragged on for many days — but now.

Thus says the humble servant Joseph, son of my lord the Rabbi, Don David, son of the saintly Joseph, son of David, son of Joseph, son of Solomon, son of the Nagid David, son of Gedaliah, son of Solomon, son of Rabbi Joseph, son of Judah, son of the lord Don Yahya, of the noble house of Judah that ruled among the people of the exile of Jerusalem that is in Sepharad (Spain), from Lisbon, a metropolis in the kingdom of Portugal. I have indeed seen the affliction of my people, the children of Israel, who dwell in the lands of foreign nations, in these very cities, lifting their eyes to the mountains of God to beg the help of redemption from God, for He is the near Redeemer; for while they remain in a hope long deferred they cry out, when will the consolations of God come? Their feet have almost slipped in their faith in God, for they hoped for justice, and behold, oppression; and, as it were, no sooner does one escape the pit than he falls into the snare. Troubles have surrounded them, yes, surrounded them, again and again, till the spirit despairs and their heads and bodies are bowed low. For this reason I resolved to explain the Book of Daniel, one of the chiefs of the people of Jerusalem's exile — to whom the angel Gabriel appeared, before whom the prince Michael stood, whose prayer on behalf of the exile God heard, and who turned his face toward the Presence of God to ask to know the end of all flesh, until the coming of that awesome day of the Messiah the Redeemer. It was revealed to him in parable and riddle that the length of the exile came about because Judah dealt treacherously; she went into exile out of her affliction, and her veil was stripped from her; she wandered and was driven about, because she did not seek to know where her Beloved had turned. May this book, then, bring us comfort — for He who heard Daniel's prayer will surely hear ours as well; He will watch over us, have mercy upon us, and look upon our plight; and from it we shall understand that there is indeed an end to troubles, even though the knowledge of exactly when is hidden from the eye of the mind to perceive, for it is among the hidden secrets of Hashem. I have likewise resolved to explain the Book of Ezra and the Book of Chronicles, which teach us the value of true knowledge and sound understanding and many weighty matters — the praiseworthy character and qualities of leaders, reward for the righteous and punishment for the rebellious — through the delightful telling of the generations of old, which root us firmly in the belief in Creation and in the truth that acts of kindness come from Hashem, and in the belief in the coming of the Redeemer for the poor and afflicted among the remnant of Hashem's people, just as He came to the aid of Israel in the days of the pious Daniel and Ezra, in the Babylonian exile, for the sake of all who were numbered among that people. The Book of Daniel was written by the Men of the Great Assembly, who culled the choice material from a larger mass in compiling it; and Ezra wrote his own book and the Book of Chronicles, which stand exceedingly high in rank; and all three were written with the holy spirit, in those days and at that time. From Hashem I ask for help in interpreting them; there I have set my course in this commentary of mine — a labor, as it were, of atonement — so that the land not lie desolate. I will thank You with an upright heart when I learn Your righteous judgments; with my lips I have declared all the judgments of Your mouth; I will keep Your statutes — do not utterly forsake me. In the third year, etc. – He relates that in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah — who was a mighty king with a mighty people — he had already become firmly established in his kingship, for he had held it three years; and by a count of three a firm hold (chazakah) is established in any matter. For Nebuchadnezzar's coming was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, after the third had run its course. It happened that Nebuchadnezzar resolved to come up against Jerusalem — a difficult undertaking touching all three phases of the advance, namely: its starting point, expressed by the words “Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem”; its intervening course, expressed by “and besieged it”; and its outcome, expressed by “and Hashem gave into his hand Jehoiakim and [the vessels of] the House of God.” For had it not been for Hashem's help to Nebuchadnezzar, he would not have been able to conquer Jerusalem, so great was the might of the people of Judah. As for King Jehoiakim and his nobles, whom Hashem delivered into his hand — he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the place where the house of his god stood, for Bel his god was in Babylon, as Scripture says, “and I will punish Bel in Babylon” (Jeremiah 51:44); and the vessels he brought to the treasure-house of his god. All this was for the praise, renown, and glory of his god, for he thought this victory was owed to his god's power, and that it was his god's help that had granted it to him.

and some of the vessels of the House of God he took, and some of them remained, as is stated (in Jeremiah 27:19): “so has the Lord of Hosts said concerning the pillars, concerning the sea, concerning the bases, and concerning the rest of the vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar did not take into exile (sic).” and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god to praise his idols; he brought the entire captivity there, even the people, and the vessels he brought afterwards to the treasury.

And Hashem gave — Scripture writes “and some of the vessels of the house of God,” for it was in the exile of Jehoiachin that the precious vessels of the House of Hashem were brought to Babylon; so it is written: “and the treasures of the House of Hashem, and the treasures of the king’s house.”

With part of the vessels, etc. – For some of the vessels remained [in the Temple after this] and were taken later, in the exile of Jehoiachin; and still others remained and were taken in the exile of Zedekiah, as it is stated: "For thus said Hashem... and concerning the rest of the vessels... which he did not take when he exiled Jehoiachin... they shall be brought to Babylon..." (Jeremiah 27:20). To the house of his god – At first he brought everything — even the men themselves — to the house of his god, to praise his god and give him thanks for the victory; only afterward did he bring the vessels of the Temple into the treasure-house.

Shinar (Shin'ar) - This is Babylon, so called because the dead of the Flood were shaken out (nin'aru) there, for it is the lowest point in the entire world.

And Hashem gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand – immediately, through Hashem's providence. And you should not say that Jehoiakim went out to him of his own accord, peaceably, for Nebuchadnezzar took with him some of the vessels of the house of God — and had Jehoiakim gone out to him of his own accord, Nebuchadnezzar would not have led him captive to Babylon, nor would he have taken the vessels of the [Temple] house, since that goes against the practice of kings, who do such things only to one who has fought against them by force and been conquered by strength. It is thus clear that this happened through conquest, and by Hashem's providence. Nebuchadnezzar, however, did not recognize that this was the work of Hashem's hand, and instead attributed his victory to his idol, as it is said, “then his spirit sweeps by, and he transgresses, ascribing this — his own strength — to his god” (Habakkuk 1:11). So he brought Jehoiakim, together with the vessels, to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, to give thanks to his idol; and the vessels he did not take into the royal treasury, but placed them in the treasury of his god. This is the introduction to the punishment that later came upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar on account of these very vessels, in the days of his grandson.

the nobles Heb. הַפַּרְתְּמִים, dukes.

And the king spoke — This is Ashpenaz; he was an officer, and he was in charge of all the officers who served, and of the king’s wives. And it is written in the words of Ezekiel: “and they shall be officers in the palace of the king of Babylon.” Chief officer — [The word “rav” means] great, as in “the city of a great king.” On this basis Yefet said that the ones described here are Daniel and his companions, and his proof is the phrase “of the royal seed.” But this is not correct, for Scripture states: “and among them were, of the children of Judah” — meaning that it was others, of the royal seed, who were the eunuchs; you will not find it written of Daniel that he was a eunuch, only that it is written of him and his companions [that they were] “youths, in whom there was no blemish” — and there is no blemish more severe than that of a eunuch. As for Daniel and his companions, the king’s command that they be taught the writing — that is, the script and language of the Chaldeans — was not [an end in itself], but rather so that they would stand before the king, and not before his wives. Now, if one should object: if what you say is true, that they were not eunuchs, why did the king place the chief of the officers in charge of them? The answer is that the king had commanded that youths of good appearance be sought out from Israel, and the depraved, even to this day, are known for their lust after males. And further: if a youth were castrated, his understanding would be diminished, whereas the king wanted those who stood before him to be knowledgeable in every wisdom, as I have explained. And Rabbi Yehoshua said that the word “officers” (sarisim) carries two senses in the holy tongue: one, “eunuchs,” and the other, “attendants.” “The chief of the officers,” in this second sense, was chief over the king’s attendants, as in “with the officers and the mighty men” — and there, too, there is no need to assume castration, for the officers there were in charge of the mighty men, because they had been servants of King David; he did not castrate them but simply took them captive, and they became guardians of his wives, following the practice of kings even to this day. Likewise: “and the king’s wives and his officers.” And it is written: “and out of the city he took one officer who was in charge of the men of war.” The nobles — The word “partemim” is foreign, and is not found elsewhere in Scripture except in the Scroll of Esther; perhaps it is a Chaldean or Persian term, like “seganim” (prefects, nobles).

His chief officer – A minister, the head over the officers. Of the seed royal – That is, [Scripture means] that these would be of royal lineage, and these very same ones would also be counted among the nobles — meaning, they were raised amid wealth and power.

His officers (sarisav) - His ministers. The nobles (haparetemim) - A term denoting authority and wealth, as in "the army of Persia and Media, the nobles" (Esther 8). It is a foreign word, and perhaps it comes from the Chaldean tongue; many similar words will be found in this book, whose meaning can only be known from what is close to their context.

And the king spoke – He commanded that youths be brought, some from among the common people (which is why it says “of the children of Israel”), and some from among the great ones, of the royal seed and of the nobles. For since he wanted them to stand before him, he assigned to each a role according to his lineage: those of the royal seed would stand in the king's palace, while the sons of the nobles would stand [in training] to become, afterward, officials in Judah — subordinate to him and versed in the customs and language of the Chaldeans — and the common people would serve him in lesser matters. This was also because Nebuchadnezzar himself was wise and discerning, as it is said, “and in every matter of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired of them” (Daniel 1:20) — for he himself would personally test the wise men. He had wise men in his kingdom from every province, by whose counsel he conducted himself, and it became known to him that the wisdom of the Jews was exceptionally great, on account of the Divine Presence and the prophecy that dwelt among them — as is related at length concerning their wisdom in Midrash Eichah Rabbah. Therefore he commanded that youths be brought from among the Jews, so that he would have their wisdom constantly before him.

And the king spoke to Ashpenaz, etc. – Then, when the king saw the greatness of Jehoiakim, his people, and the vessels of the Temple, he resolved to take, from among the distinguished members of that exalted people, some of the royal seed and some of the nobles.

and who have strength Our Sages explained (Sanh. 93b) that they should restrain themselves from laughing, speaking and sleeping, out of fear of the throne, and resist the urge when they feel the need to relieve themselves. and to teach them the script This refers back to “who have strength.”

Youths — like the blind and the lame, who are not fit to stand before a king; therefore it is written, “the blind and the lame shall not come into the house” — meaning the house of the kingdom of David. Fair to look on — that they were not sallow, and did not look as though they were ill. Skillful in all wisdom — encompassing everything. Skillful in knowledge — that they would grasp, from the very start of a speaker’s words, what he meant to say by the end; for there are many wise men who do not grasp this until the speaker has finished. Discerning in thought — that they would be able to make others understand what was in their heart and mind, as in “curse not the king, even in your thought” — for there are wise men who struggle to put into words what is in their heart, except by a roundabout and twisted path. Such as had ability — that their constitution would be strong enough even to suppress a sneeze, so that they could stand before him at all times and endure whatever was required of them. Now, he commanded that they seek out those in whom these qualities were found, and such qualities are not found in a child under fifteen years old. There was, then, no need to spend the three years teaching them wisdom itself — only the script of the Chaldeans and their language, so that they could speak with the king in his own tongue. Thus only grown youths went out from Jerusalem: Daniel went out at fifteen years old, when Jehoiakim went to Babylon; and Jehoiakim reigned eight more years — which makes twenty-three. Some say it was in Zedekiah’s time instead, which would make him thirty-four, and, by the days of Esther, seventy years old — so he would have been very old indeed by the days of Esther; perhaps he had already died and did not go up to the Second [Temple], and he is not Sheshbazzar, as can be shown by conclusive proofs.

No blemish – Meaning, not the slightest defect at all, as in "you shall not eat any carcass" (Deuteronomy 11) [where "any" likewise excludes every last case]. Fair to look on – In fairness and radiance of complexion. Skillful in all wisdom – That they be skilled in every kind of wisdom. Skillful in knowledge – That is, from the very first words of a speaker they would already grasp his meaning, the substance of his intent, and where his words would ultimately lead. Discerning in thought – That is, that they would be eloquent, expressing themselves in the finest manner, so as to make others understand what was in their minds and their thoughts. Such as had ability [to stand in the king's palace] – To overcome nature, forcing themselves to hold back laughter, sleep, and the like, so that they could stand in the king's palace without any hindrance, as is fitting and proper. That he should teach them the learning – This refers back to the earlier clause, meaning: [he commanded] "to bring in certain of the children of Israel," etc., "and that he should teach them the learning," etc. — namely, the writing and the language [of the Chaldeans].

Blemish (me'um) - Like "mum" (blemish). Discerning in thought (mada) - A term for "machshavah" (thought), as in "do not curse the king even in your thought (mada'acha)" (Ecclesiastes 10). The learning (sefer) - That is, the writing recorded in a document.

The questions: What did he mean by repeating himself — “skillful in all wisdom,” and “skillful in knowledge,” and “discerning in thought” — what is the difference between them? Youths – He commanded that the youths be perfect both in body and in mind. Regarding physical perfection he said “in whom there was no blemish” — that there be no defect whatsoever in their bodies. There is a difference between a “mum” (blemish) and a “me'um” (“any thing”): a mum is a serious defect, like the blemishes that disqualify priests [from Temple service], while me'um is related to “me'umah” (“anything at all”), meaning that nothing unseemly whatsoever should be found in them — our Sages said this includes even the mark of a lancet [a scar from bloodletting]. It also includes “fair to look on” in the sense of good form — a body built in proper proportion and orderly composition, which lends grace — and fair to look on in the sense of appearance, that they have beautiful eyes and a pleasant look; and it also includes beauty of complexion — not too pale, which is a sign of sluggishness, and not dark, but ruddy and fair. Regarding perfection of mind he said, “skillful in all wisdom.” Now, it is explained elsewhere by us that there is a difference between “chochmah” (wisdom) and “da'at” (knowledge): da'at refers to things grasped through the senses or through self-evident first principles, matters about which clear knowledge is possible — such as natural science, geometry, and medicine — whereas chochmah concerns conduct between good and evil, matters that cannot be grasped by demonstrative proofs of the intellect nor by the faculty of “binah” (understanding), for we never find it said anywhere “understand wisdom”; rather, they are grasped by the “sechel” (the higher intellect), a keen faculty that penetrates matters beyond the reach of binah and da'at, as is stated in the book of Proverbs. As for “skillful in knowledge, and discerning in thought”: there is a difference between “da'at” and “mada.” Particular things grasped through the senses and through examination are called da'at; while the general body of knowledge that has been assembled by various knowledgeable people and become an organized system — a body of instruction laid out across every branch of learning (for example, the teachings of natural science, or of medicine as a whole, arranged in full and preserved as a distinct discipline agreed upon by the scholars) — is called “mada” (science). And those who are able to derive one thing from the general principles of a science, and to reason by analogy from one thing to another through the power of understanding, are called “discerning in thought.” As for those who had the ability to stand in the king's palace — he further stipulated that they be able to win favor, so as to become among his attendants and sages who stand before him. For this he also required that they possess two kinds of readiness: first, physical readiness — that they be strong and firm in their inner strength, able to stand in the king's palace, requiring that they be strong enough to remain standing on their feet, as our Sages said, that they had to restrain themselves from laughter and from sleep, and even hold themselves back when they needed to relieve themselves; second, [readiness] “to be taught learning” — that they have the aptitude to receive instruction in literature and language, for which one needs a strong memory, to learn a language quickly. Now, there is a difference between one who learns the spoken language and one who also learns the script, so as to be able to read a book — and so it says “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” Among them, Aramaic was the language of the common people, while “the tongue of the Chaldeans” was the language of the learned, who spoke in an elevated, rhetorical style, employing wisdom — and it is known that rhetoric and lofty speech require a special faculty of the soul and strength of imagination. This is why “that he should teach them” is introduced with a conjunctive vav [marking it as an additional, distinct requirement].

Youths – This excludes their being grown young men. The reason is that a youth is like a smooth tablet, ready to receive every imprint, so that they could be educated in whatever they were now taught anew, and their nature would grow accustomed to it. Whereas had they been grown young men, it would have been difficult to wean them from the habits to which they had already grown accustomed, for habit governs every matter, and custom is a second nature. In whom there was no blemish – Lacking any limb, or having any deformity or dislocation. For just as a sacrifice, or the one who offers it, is repugnant in the eyes of God, may He be blessed, if it has a blemish, so too one who draws near to the palace of a king is repugnant if his blemish is upon him — for an earthly kingdom is like a heavenly kingdom. And the reason is that one whom his God and his own nature did not guard from mishaps will be found to have a defect of constitution. Therefore there is a saying among the moralists of the Christians that no one whom God marked with a sign of blemish was ever perfect. And fair to look on — in quality, meaning that their appearance would be good, with whiteness and ruddiness in proper balance according to human nature; not overly red, inclining toward redness, which is a poor temperament, nor overly black, inclining toward blackness, which is likewise a poor temperament — and so with the other complexions. It is as though a person's appearance testifies to his inner balance, and from that balance, perfection follows. And skillful in all wisdom, etc. – Having listed the three bodily perfections, he now lists three further perfections of the mind. The first: that they be skillful in everything they were taught — this is theoretical [intellectual] perfection. The second: that they be knowledgeable — this is proper conduct, whether of the individual, the household, or the state, together with skill in crafts and the strategies of war; this is the perfection of the practical intellect. The third: that they be discerning in thought — meaning that, beyond what they were taught, having achieved perfection in both the theoretical and the practical intellect, they would add to their understanding wisdom and knowledge by grasping one thing from another. And such as had ability, etc. – He describes yet another perfection: that they be naturally strong, having the strength to stand in the king's palace and serve him — a matter that is great, very difficult, and dangerous. For serving kings is comparable to sailing ships: just as when the sea rages and the storm of its waves is great, one there beholds the work of Hashem, for it is awesome — so too is a king's fury like messengers of death. Therefore those who serve them must have the strength to endure without spitting or sneezing or losing control of their bodily functions, and to endure standing continuously, and many things of this kind. And that he should teach them the learning, etc. – This means that they must also have the strength to endure sustained study in the learning of the sciences, for continuous study saps one's strength; and to endure the study of the language of the Chaldeans — this alludes to the study of religions, laws and customs, crafts, and the strategies of war belonging to the practical intellect, which the Babylonians possessed in their own tongue, the Chaldean language.

allotted Heb. וַיְמַן, an expression of preparation. of... food Heb. מִפַּת־בַּג. That is the name of the king’s fare in the language of the Chaldeans. Some interpret פַּת־בַּג, [as] bread, but it does not appear correct, for it is written (below verse 16): “The steward would take away פַּת־בָּגָם... and give them pulse.” Now pulse is not a substitute for bread, but a substitute for cooked food.

And the king appointed — This is a transitive verb, meaning to allot them portions. “Vag” means food. Scripture elsewhere writes “venatatikha levag” but this is read “levaz” — the two meanings being close, perhaps because “vag” likewise refers to cooked meat. And of the wine which he drank — Scripture writes “his drinks” in the plural, not “his drink” in the singular, because there was a specific day for drinking white wine, or red, or the wine of a particular known place. That they should be nourished — to accustom them to attend [on the king] and to know the ways of royalty; this is also the sense of “in whom there was ability.” At the end of that time — some say that [the word] means “some of the youths,” [as in] “some of the vessels of the house of God,” or “from among his brothers” — and that sense, too, is valid; but here it should be understood as “at the end of,” namely, at the conclusion of the years just mentioned. Compare: “and at the end of ten days.”

And the king appointed for them – All this is part of the king's own words, spoken to Ashpenaz: "the king will provide for them, every day, whatever they need for that day, from the king's food and from the wine that he himself drinks." (Even though it was Nebuchadnezzar himself who was speaking, he did not speak of himself in the first person; this is Scripture's way, as in "and He sent... and Samuel" (I Samuel 12), even though Samuel himself was the speaker there — and there are many such cases.) That they should be nourished – In this way they would be nourished for three years, so that they would look handsome and well-fed. That at the end of that time – At the end of the three years they would stand continually before the king, to serve him at all times.

Appointed (vayeman) - An expression of designation, as in "and Hashem appointed (vayeman) a fish" (Jonah 2:1). The king's food (pat bag) - A term meaning "food."

And the king appointed for them – This tells how the king attended to these youths in every particular: 1) he himself arranged for their provisions; 2) it was from the king's own food-portion, the very food eaten at the tables of kings, for delicate foods and fragrant wines broaden the understanding, improve the temperament, and refine the brain, their very substance and aroma being of the kind that sharpen the mind; 3) he provided for them day by day, for the king's food varied daily according to the nature of the day and the season, following the regimen of the physicians who oversaw the health of his body, so that the foods would vary with the cold, the heat, and the constitution — and the youths were attended to in the very same way; 4) he allowed them a full three years in which to be raised, which is sufficient time to teach them, as our sages, of blessed memory, said: any student who does not see a sign of blessing in his learning within three years will never see a sign of blessing in it. All this preparation was so that some of the youths — those who succeeded in their studies — would stand before the king and sit with his people in his service, just as it was the practice of the king of Egypt and the king of Turkey to gather many children of Christian families and raise them, so that those found fit among them would stand before him.

And the king appointed for them, etc. – That the king would prepare for them a fine portion, day by day, from his own food and his own wine, which were the best in the kingdom. And thus they would be raised for three years, so that they might achieve great perfection — at least some of them — and stand before the king to serve him. By the natural order it was necessary that they be perfect: whether by virtue of the nature of their own nation, the most perfect among the nations; or by virtue of the nature of their father, who was distinguished within that nation, of royal lineage and of noble stock; or by virtue of the constitution of their limbs and their perfect appearance, which indicated their perfection; or by virtue of their intellect; or by virtue of their strength; or by virtue of their food and drink.

Now among these were — the point of “of the children of Judah” is that there were, in Jerusalem, also [youths] of the children of Benjamin among those gathered; and these were not kin to one another, for Scripture says: “and they sought to put Daniel and his companions to death” — calling them “companions,” not “brothers.”

Now among these were – Among those youths whom Ashpenaz brought in, as the king had commanded. And for further clarification it says "of the children of Judah" — that is, of the royal line of the kings of Judah; what was stated only in general terms above is spelled out here. Daniel, etc. – For he brought many of the royal line of the kings of Judah, and among them were Daniel, etc.

Now among these were – Since he took many youths, four of them were from the tribe of Judah, that is, of the pedigreed lineage of the House of David, for the lineage of kingship belonged to Judah, who “prevailed over his brothers” (1 Chronicles 5:2) — as opposed to the common people, who were called by the name “children of Israel.” And it has already been explained in the words of our sages, of blessed memory, that Daniel was of the lineage of the House of David, as R. Isaac Abarbanel wrote at length, unlike Ralbag.

Now among these were, of the children of Judah, etc. – He relates that among them — that is, among the youths mentioned, of the children of Judah, whom Ashpenaz had taken for himself by the king's order — there were four who were exceedingly perfect: namely Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Since Ashpenaz determined that they were fit to stand before the king because of their perfection, he changed their names and gave them names taken from the gods of the land, for honor and glory.

Belteshazzar He named him after the god of Babylon, which was called Bel, as it is said (4: 5): “whose name is Belteshazzar, like the name of my god.” Teshazzar is the Aramaic expression denoting wisdom.

And the chief of the officers gave names to them — just as Pharaoh called Joseph by the name Zaphenath-paneah. And Rav Saadia Gaon said that “Bel” is a word of the Chaldean language, and so is “-tzar” — hence Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Sheshbazzar. The name “Bel” explicitly means the name of a god, and “Shadrach” and “Meshach” are likewise Chaldean-language names. And the Gaon said that “[Abed-]nego” is like “[Ne]bo” — but without proof.

Names – In addition to the names they had been given at birth. Belteshazzar – Perhaps this word conveys, in the Chaldean language, what "Daniel" conveys in the Holy Tongue; and so too with the rest of the names.

Questions: Why did he give names only to these four youths? And the chief of the officers gave names to them – He did not change the names of the other youths, for it was the practice to change a person's name only for those who entered the king's service and rose to greatness, just as Nebuchadnezzar changed the name of Zedekiah. And here is a second point: that to Daniel he gave the name Belteshazzar, which is the name of Nebuchadnezzar's god, for he recognized Daniel's greatness immediately and perceived something god-like in him — as is stated below (4:5), “whose name was called Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god,” and below (5:12), “whom the king named Belteshazzar.” This shows that it was done by the king's own order, because he saw in Daniel a superior aptitude for wisdom. It was not so, however, with Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, to whom he gave other names not after the name of an idol. Therefore—

not to be defiled Heb. לֹא יָתְגָּאַל, an expression of sullying.

But Daniel purposed in his heart — the king’s food-portion was forbidden [to him], and the wine, too, was forbidden; for it is stated: “it is poured out, according to their law, as a libation to their gods.”

Purposed [in his heart] – He resolved in his heart and was moved to act on the matter. That he would not defile himself – With forbidden foods and with wine used by idolaters. He requested – He asked him to withhold the royal food and wine from him, so that he would not defile himself.

Defile himself (yitga'al) - An expression of filth and defilement, as in "polluted (megoal) bread" (Malachi 1).

Questions (1:8–15): Why did Daniel not make his request directly to the steward? And why did he not say to the chief of the officers that he should test them, as he later said to the steward? And what is the meaning of his request “that he might not defile himself” — for such a request would surely, without doubt, arouse the wrath of a king who held the power of death, once Daniel implied that the king's table was defiling and its food contemptible to eat? And what of the statement that Hashem granted him mercy and compassion — was his request not in fact left unfulfilled? But Daniel purposed in his heart – Daniel thought that they had set him apart for idolatry and meant to make him transgress his religion, and that even the foods and wine set aside for him were sacrifices to the dead and their libation wine (see Psalms 106:28) — indeed, some commentators explain that the very term “food-portion” (pat bag) means food offered to idols. So he made his request to the chief of the officers, since he took this to be an attempt to force him to transgress his religion, and believed the king would insist that they eat specifically from this food, and that if he refused it would be treated as rebellion. He resolved in his heart to give up his life over this, in accordance with the law that applies when the intent is specifically to force a transgression of one's religion. Therefore, when he made his request to the chief of the officers, he did not offer him pretexts or other reasons, but stated plainly “that he might not defile himself” — he informed him that by his religion this was defiling bread, and that he did not wish to be defiled. And even though this placed him in tremendous danger, he did not conceal the truth. And this only Daniel did, since he alone perceived that they had set him apart for idolatry — not his companions; therefore he alone made the request, and not they.

But Daniel purposed in his heart, etc. – Behold, it was a great deliverance and salvation for Daniel and his companions to rise to so lofty a station as to eat from the king's food-portion and drink of the wine of a king as great as Nebuchadnezzar. And yet, for the sake of Hashem and His Torah, he and his companions agreed not to defile themselves through this advancement and salvation, but rather to sanctify Hashem and to endure death itself rather than let their mouths be sullied by forbidden foods. And because Daniel was the most perfect of them all, and it was he who first raised the matter while his companions were drawn after him, the proper act described here is at first attributed to him alone, and only afterward to him and his companions together. At first Daniel requested, in prayer and supplication, of the chief officer appointed over this matter, that he not be forced to defile himself. This might well have caused that officer to become angry with him and inform against him to the king — both out of love and regard for the honor of the kingdom (since this poor, lowly youth was thereby rejecting the king's food and drink), and out of fear of the king, lest he himself be punished once it became apparent that the intended purpose — namely, that good food and drink sustain the body and its organs in proper condition, so that the workings of the mind emerge in perfection — was not being achieved for lack of that food and drink. Yet Hashem granted Daniel favor before the officer, so that — despite his love for the king — he did not inform against him, and despite his fear as well, he did not inform against him. But in fact the officer told Daniel that he would not do as he asked, for he feared the king, since it would become apparent that the purpose for whose sake they had been placed in his charge was not being achieved.

the chief officer who was the chief over the king’s servants.

And God granted — the Gaon said that the meaning is that He gave him favor, kindness, and compassion in the eyes of the chief officer; yet the officer did not grant his request, and answered that he had not revealed his own fear to the king, for the king would not let him live [if he found out].

Mercy and compassion – Even though he did not grant Daniel's request, it was still accounted as kindness that he did not rebuke him but answered him gently, and that he turned a blind eye to what the steward did.

And God granted – This came through Hashem's providence, who placed him in the chief of the officers' favor, both to pardon him for this “offense” he had spoken of within himself, and to grant him compassion as well, for the chief of the officers saw the distress of Daniel's soul on account of his religion, had mercy on him, and his heart yearned for him (compare Jeremiah 31:20) — so that not only did he not punish him at all, he even spoke gently with him.

who allotted who prepared and provided. like you כְּגִילְכֶם, of your likeness. It is the language of the Mishnah; one of his likeness. and you will forfeit my head to the king You shall bring about that I will be condemned to be beheaded.

And the chief of the officers said to Daniel — it is written “your food,” meaning the bread and the food-portion, and “your drinks” in the plural — whatever the king drank in the days of summer and of winter, from that they too would drink. Your faces sad — like the faces of men who are sullen. Of your own age — this expression has no parallel elsewhere in Scripture, only in the language of our sages of old: “one of his own age.” So would you endanger — from the same root as the words for “pledge” and “debt” — two grammatical patterns of a single root, like “kam” (“he arose”) alongside “kiyem” (“he confirmed”) in “to confirm these matters of Purim.”

Who has appointed – He himself ordered and fixed your food; how then could I go against his word? For why should he see – Why should I do such a thing, that the king would see your faces sad and worse than the faces of the other youths? So would you endanger [my head] – And through you I would forfeit my own head to the king, for it is the king's law to cut off the head of anyone who disobeys his word.

Appointed (minah) - He designated. Sad (zo'afim) - That is, looking bad; the term relates to "za'af" (vexation) and anger, for one who is angry has his facial appearance changed for the worse. Of your own age (kegilchem) - Like your peers; and so in the words of our sages, "ben gilo" (someone of the same age) (Yevamot 120).

And the chief of the officers said – He excused himself, explaining that he could not do this out of fear of the king, and he explained it to them thus: if I reveal your request to the king — “I fear my lord the king, who has appointed your food,” since he himself arranged your food in this way; if it becomes known to him that you do not want his food-portion, that is rebellion against the king. And if I conceal the matter from the king, I fear on another account — that when he sees you and the rest of the youths, he will ask, “why does he see your faces sad?” — for he will notice this by comparing you to the other youths, since they are of your own age, similar to you in years, growth, and diet; why then would your faces look sad next to theirs? And through that very question he will sense that something is wrong, and thus you would endanger my head with the king. It may also be explained that Daniel had asked only not to be defiled, wanting other, good foods in its place that were prepared in a permissible way — in which case there would be no concern that the king would see their faces sad, only a concern of rebellion, and that is why he said, “I fear the king.” Whereas if he simply gave them legumes from the king's own table, there would be no concern of rebellion, since it would still be from the king's table — but then that is why he said, “why should he see your faces sad?”

the steward Heb. הַמֶּלְצַר, the one who arranges the portions and the plates, called maestre sala, seneschal, steward.

Then Daniel said to the steward, whom the chief of the officers had appointed — “the steward” is a Chaldean-language term for the one who distributes the portions. The meaning of “whom he had appointed” is like “placed in charge,” or, in the language of the Sages, “appointed.” But to derive the word “steward” itself from the same root as “whom he had appointed” — that is, “the one who divides the portions” — is very difficult, even though it is written specifically with regard to Daniel.

Over Daniel, etc. – [The steward had been appointed] to bring them their food and their drink.

The steward (hameltzar) - He is the one who arranges the food. Whom ... had appointed (asher minah) - Whom he had placed in charge, as in "and some of them were appointed over the vessels" (I Chronicles 9).

Then Daniel said – Now, he did not present his request directly to the steward, who was subordinate to the chief of the officers, for he feared that this would become known to the chief of the officers, who inspected the food at all times. Only after he had already presented his request before the high officer, and found favor in his eyes, did he know that the chief would overlook the steward's action, and that the steward would not be held responsible for it. Therefore he then presented his request to the steward — but to him he did not reveal at all his intention not to defile himself; he simply said to him.

Then Daniel said to the steward, etc. – It appears that after Daniel saw that the chief officer would not listen to him, he spoke similar words to the steward, who was that officer's servant and had been placed in charge of them and of their food and drink. He too answered in the same way, out of his fear of the officer and of the king.

test Heb. נַס an expression of (נִסָיוֹן) testing. some pulse a type of beans instead of the food.

Try your servants, I beseech you — a form of entreaty, like “entreat, I pray, the favor of Hashem.” Ten days — because a living being cannot endure privation for more than nine days at most, as the authorities on natural science have stated; and instead of the king’s food-portion, “give us pulse” — that is, grains, once they have ripened — and instead of wine, “give us water.”

Your servants – He said this of himself and of his companions Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And water to drink – Let them give us water, and we will drink it.

Try (nas) - An expression of "nisayon" (test). Pulse (hazeru'im) - Kinds of legumes, such as beans and the like.

’Try your servants, I beseech you’ – It is as though he said: to achieve the goal of being fair of form and healthy of flesh, one attains this better through simple foods than through rich, refined foods, which give rise to many chronic and persistent illnesses; and for those who love a life of abstinence and contemplation, simple foods are of greater help, both for the clarity of their minds and for the health of their bodies. And he let it be known that this could be proven by a trial, testing them for ten days; and indeed, Abarbanel already noted, in the name of the physicians, that the harm of bad foods becomes recognizable in a person's diet within ten days, for by then their harm will be noticeable in the countenance of the face.

Then Daniel said to him that he should test them ten days — a third of a month — during which time the effects produced in them, for good or for bad, would become apparent: by their eating of the pulse (that is, every kind of legume) and drinking water. He should then observe their appearance alongside the appearance of the other youths who ate the king's rich food, and act according to what he saw, for perhaps their appearance would prove more impressive than theirs.

and as you will see According to what you see, do.

Then let our countenances be looked upon — at the end of the ten days, let our appearance be examined; and it mentions “the king’s food” but adopts a concise style, without separately mentioning the wine.

Our countenances, and the countenance..., etc. – You will look at our faces alongside theirs, to see whether there is any difference between the two. And as you see – Act according to what you see: if our faces are not worse than theirs, then continue giving us the pulse and water; but if they are worse, then we will have no choice but to eat the king's food and drink the wine.

Try your servants, I beseech you – as if to say: the goal of a fair appearance and healthy flesh is better attained through simple foods than through rich, refined foods, which give rise to many chronic ailments. For those who love a life of asceticism and study, simple foods are even more helpful, both for the sharpness of their minds and for the health of their bodies. Daniel knew this from experience, and so proposed testing them for ten days. Abarbanel already noted, in the name of the physicians, that the harm caused by bad foods to a person's nourishment becomes recognizable within ten days, for by then the damage is felt in the countenance.

So he hearkened to them — Yefet ben Eli said that every day he would look at their faces, until the ten days were complete.

So he hearkened to them – it was by Hashem's providence that he listened to them and agreed to test them. There was no danger to him in this, for he knew the king would not see them until the full time was up, and they had asked for only ten days; had he seen the food doing them harm, he could simply have stopped giving them the pulse. The steward did not know that the king was particular that they eat specifically the king's food; he thought the king wanted only that they be healthy of flesh, and reasoned that if they achieved this through simple foods, he would not be transgressing the king's command — and so he listened to them.

'And at the end ... appeared' — the meaning is: all their appearance [improved]. The Gaon says this was a great miracle — but that is not necessary [to assume], for they were eating rice, called in Arabic 'aruz,' which is highly regarded and more pleasant than wheat, and produces pure blood; it is the food of the people of India, who have no wheat and make dishes from it, and this rice swells up greatly when it is cooked in milk. The rule is that a small amount of it satisfies, and it is heavy in weight, and its grains are very thin and not round, and its nature is hot and moist. It is astonishing that a great scholar said that it is millet [dochan], whose grains are round and which keeps for many years without spoiling — that is in fact a poor food, whose nature is cold and dry. Among the legumes there are also peas, but not the kind found in France, for those are cold, harmful, and cause bloating; the [good] peas are found in Spain, Egypt, Rome, and Provence, and they are of three kinds: some white, some red, and some black, and this last kind is the most highly regarded of all; all three kinds are hot and moist, and their broth is a remedy for the liver, and they brighten the face more than wine does. One can tell the difference, for the [inferior] peas of France have no 'mouth' [opening], while the three [good] kinds do have a 'mouth.' Now, rice and peas are both a kind of pulse, and they build up healthy flesh. Furthermore, any food that the soul desires more will benefit [the body] more than a food the soul does not love, even if that [disliked] food is hot and moist as befits the nature of living creatures. So these [four youths] were eating what their souls desired, and it benefited them.

Than all – Even more so than all the other youths, etc.

Fatter (uverei) - An expression of fatness, as in "and Eglon was a very fat (bari) man" (Judges 3:17).

And at the end of ten days – it was by Hashem's providence that their appearance was fair and they were also fatter in flesh, which is beyond nature: legumes do not fatten the body the way meat and wine do.

This is indeed what he did: he heeded their request, and by the providence of God, may He be blessed, in quality their appearance was seen to be good, and in quantity they were fatter of flesh than all the other youths.

carry away their food He would take it for himself.

'So ... took away' — [understand: he did so] willingly, of his own accord; and what had earlier been stated tersely, without mentioning the wine, is now mentioned. The nun of 'zeronim' [pulse] is an added letter, as with 'la-ge'ayonim' [the haughty ones], and there are many words like it.

Took away – He took it for himself. Their food – That is, what had been given to them as their food [rations].

So the steward took away – he stood to gain from this, for instead of the legumes he gave them, he would take their portion of the king's food for himself. In this the verse tells of the holiness of Daniel and his companions, who gave up the delicacies they had been accustomed to since youth and chose legumes instead; and out of the abundance of their holiness and self-restraint, they ate with joy and gladness of heart, until they grew fat in flesh — especially Daniel in his holiness, who risked his life over this, for it was dangerous for him. This makes known how Hashem's providence sheltered them according to their own spiritual preparation.

And the steward continued to do so, regularly taking away their food-portion and the wine they were to drink, and giving them legumes instead.

'Now as for these ... youths' — the meaning is [that this applies to] all four of them, who were equal in all wisdom; only Daniel surpassed them, in that he had understanding in every vision and the interpretation of dreams, for he alone was a prophet, and not the other three.

These four youths – That is, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Knowledge and skill – Knowledge of these subjects, and also the ability to reason further and draw new conclusions from them. All learning – The script and language of every people, and every kind of wisdom. And Daniel – And beyond the other three, Daniel had understanding in every vision and dream — meaning, he had the ability to know the interpretation of dreams.

Visions (chazon) - The perceiving of the dream; this is a doubling of the same idea in different words.

Now as for these four youths – the divine influence that rested upon them corresponded to their own preparation: the four youths, who were equally scrupulous in abstaining from forbidden foods, were correspondingly equal in knowledge and skill, surpassing the youths who had defiled themselves with the king's food; and Daniel, who surpassed them in self-sacrifice, merited a spirit of the holy God. Knowledge and skill – the meaning is: ‘knowledge’ applies to all ‘learning,’ and ‘skill’ to all ‘wisdom.’ For ‘knowledge’ concerns things attained through the senses or through rational proof, and that is true of every book among the applied sciences, such as natural science, medicine, and the like. But with ‘wisdom,’ the term ‘skill’ fits better — as I wrote in my commentary on Proverbs, that wisdom cannot be attained through rational proofs, only through skill, a keen faculty for grasping matters of wisdom. And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams – meaning: there are interpreters of dreams who work through a heightened estimative faculty, but they understand not every dream — only some of them. Daniel, however, understood through an outpouring of the holy spirit, and so he understood all of them without exception — not merely part of a dream, but the whole of it in its completeness. This was the distinction of Joseph, Daniel, and others like them, who perceived by the spirit of God. A dream (chalom) involves no visual scene, whereas a vision (chizayon) does display some scene — like the image that appeared to Nebuchadnezzar and the like — and a vision (chazon) can occur even while one is awake, when the imaginative faculty predominates.

Beyond the fact that all four of these youths, by Hashem's providence, were physically perfect — in beauty and health — beyond everyone else, they were also perfect in spiritual matters, in that they trusted in Hashem and sanctified His name. For God gave them knowledge, that is, the practical intellect, in all learning, and understanding, that is, the theoretical intellect, in all wisdom. And Daniel, who was the most perfect of them all, reached the outer limit of prophetic attainment and understood every vision and every dream.

that the king ordered to bring them that they come before him.

'And at the end' — at the end of the three years. 'For bringing them in' — before the king.

At the end of the days – At the end of the three years. Which the king had appointed for bringing them in – To stand before him, as stated above. Brought them in – He then brought in all the youths, to select from among them who would stand before him.

And at the end of the days – meaning at the conclusion of the three years, which the king had already allotted, ordering that they be brought in once the three years were complete; and he brought them in.

'At the end of the days which the king had appointed for bringing them in' — these were three years. But before those days were completed — only part of them had passed — the chief of the officers brought them before the king on his own initiative, upon seeing their perfection.

'And ... spoke' — in his [own] language. 'And none was found' — among all the Jewish youths who had been exiled, none like these four. 'Therefore they stood before the king' — they alone [these four, and not the others].

The king spoke with them – With words of wisdom and understanding, so as to test the wisdom of each one. And among them all none was found – None was found to be as wise and discerning as Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They stood [before the king] – He appointed them to stand before him continually, to serve him.

And the king spoke – he then spoke with all the youths to test them, and among all of them none was found equal to Daniel; therefore they remained standing in his palace.

The king spoke with them, and among them all none were found as accomplished as these four; therefore the king kept them to stand before him.

the necromancers These are the ones who inquire of טִימֵי מֵתִים, the bones of the dead, as you say, “May his bones be crushed,” שְּׁחִיק טַמַיָא. the astrologers These are the ones who “press” the constellation. So it is explained in Tanhuma (Miketz 2, Buber, Miketz 4).

'And in all' — this shows that Nebuchadnezzar himself was learned in the [various forms of] wisdom, and that he found each of these four to know ten times more than any single magician or enchanter. It is possible that 'ten' here serves as a term for a large, round number, as in 'more than ten rulers' (Ecclesiastes 7:19), since ten is a complete sum; indeed the author of Sefer Yetzirah speaks of the 'ten sefirot belimah' ['without a what,' i.e. without substance]. The magicians are not the same as the enchanters, for Scripture goes on to write of calling 'the magicians and the enchanters' [separately, in the next verse], and I will explain them there.

Wisdom and understanding – The wisdom of grasping one thing from another [i.e., reasoning by inference]. He found them – He found them ten times superior to all the magicians and enchanters.

Times (yadot) - [Literally] "portions," as in "and the four portions (hayadot)" (Genesis 47). The magicians (hachartumim) - These are the scholars of nature. The enchanters (ha'ashafim) - These are the scholars of medicine.

And in all matters – after they stood before him and became his officers and advisors, then whenever an occasion arose in which the king needed to ask his wise men a matter of wisdom and understanding, he would gather all the magicians and enchanters to hear what they had to say, with Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah among them — and he always found that they possessed ten times more wisdom than all his wise men.

It was not enough that they were wiser than all the other youths; rather, in every matter of wisdom that they had learned, and of understanding — meaning what they grasped on their own and derived by inference — whatever the king asked of them, he found them ten times superior to all the magicians and enchanters in his entire kingdom. The magicians (chartumim) are those skilled in theoretical intellect, and the enchanters (ashafim) are those skilled in practical intellect.

And Daniel was there in greatness in Babylon until the first year of King Cyrus. According to the one who says that Hathach (Esther; 4:5, 6, 9, 10) is Daniel; and why was he called Hathach? Because he was cut off (חֲתָכוּהוּ) from his greatness; [according to his explanation] we must say that this is Cyrus I, who preceded Ahasuerus. But according to the one who says that all royal affairs were decided (נֶחְתָּכִים) by his orders, we must say that this Cyrus was Darius II, [who came] after Ahasuerus, and in the days of Darius the Mede, when they cast [Daniel] into the lions’ den, he was not demoted from his greatness, as it is said (6:29): “And this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and during the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” We learn that during the days of Cyrus I he was [still] in his greatness.

'And ... continued' — the meaning is that he [Daniel] remained in Babylon until the first year of King Cyrus. Now, had it been written 'ad shanah achat' [with the noun in its ordinary, absolute form], it would appear that a complete year had passed; but by saying 'shenat achat' [in the construct-like form], the meaning is: within [that] year [i.e., sometime in the course of it, not necessarily its completion].

And Daniel continued – He remained in a position of greatness in Babylon until the year mentioned, etc.; and from then on he withdrew from the king's service and appointed Zerubbabel in his place.

And Daniel continued – until that time he remained in the royal court; for after he was thrown into the lions' den, he resigned his position and settled in Shushan, as Abarbanel wrote in the name of Sefer Josippon.

Second section: 'And Daniel continued even to the first year' etc. — the text tells that Daniel stood in the royal court in Babylon until the first year of Cyrus, for all the kings honored him for his wisdom, and he did not leave there until that time, when he went up from Babylon to Jerusalem together with the rest of those who went up by permission of Cyrus, who authorized the building of the Temple and the return to the holy city. It was over this entire span of time that all the events he relates took place.