The discourse of Abraham son of Rabbi Meir Ibn Ezra haSefardi: This is the book of the "man greatly beloved" [Daniel 9:23, Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19]. Weighty matters are discussed in it, and prophecies past and future. Everything is presented concisely in riddles, and secrets [revealed] through angels on high, resting upon foundations. But its commentators have not grasped its secret (lit. "stood in its secret"), and each one explained according to his ability (lit. "as his hand reached"). The feet of all of them stumble regarding the end of "a time, times [and half a time]" [cf. Daniel 12:7]. Also, the [identity of the fourth] beast became confused for them, for they identified the fourth [beast/kingdom of Daniel 7] as the third. And now I will begin to explain according to the precision of the language.

[Daniel 1:1] Bi-shnat (בִּשְׁנַת - In the... year): We find it written that Jehoiakim reigned for eleven years [II Kings 23:36; II Chronicles 36:5]. If so, what is the meaning of “in the third year of his reign”?! Now, concerning ["these are the sons of Josiah," I Chronicles 3:15] 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. Some of our Sages, of blessed memory, said that this Jehoahaz [who reigned first, II Kings 23:31] is Johanan. But behold, he reigned only three months [II Kings 23:31]. Then his brother Jehoiakim reigned after him, and he [Jehoiakim] was twenty-five years old [II Kings 23:36]. Now, he [Jehoahaz, who was 23, II Kings 23:31] was younger than Jehoiakim. So how could Scripture call [Johanan, identified by the Sages with Jehoahaz] the firstborn?! Therefore, they said [it means] "firstborn for kingship" [i.e., the first to be chosen to reign]. And [based on this line of reasoning] they were forced to say that Shallum is Zedekiah, because Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Shallum [Jeremiah 22:11-12] is adjacent to his prophecy concerning Zedekiah [Jeremiah 23:5-6]. Furthermore, [they argued this] because no one reigned over Israel after Zedekiah, and for Scripture to list a fourth [son, Shallum] merely as a name without substance [i.e., without significance] would be a strange way [of writing]. Now, understand that [contrary to those Sages] Jehoahaz is Shallum. And Johanan did not reign. And do not be astonished that Shallum is called by two names, for behold, Solomon is Qohelet [Ecclesiastes 1:1], and the sons of Samuel [were listed as] Vashni and Abijah [I Chronicles 6:13], yet elsewhere it is written that [the firstborn] was Joel [I Samuel 8:2]; and ʿAmminadav is Izhar [cf. I Chronicles 6:7, I Chronicles 6:23, based on certain lineage interpretations]; and Uriel is Zephaniah [cf. I Chronicles 6:9, I Chronicles 15:5, I Chronicles 15:11]; and many others like these. And in the Torah, Zerah is Zohar [Genesis 46:10 vs. Numbers 26:13 / Exodus 6:15 - different spellings for Simeon's son]. And the proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that when the father [Josiah] died, Jehoiakim was 25 years old [II Kings 23:36], Zedekiah, who was the third [son listed in I Chronicles 3:15], was 24 (sic) years old, and Shallum was 23 years old [II Kings 23:31, giving Jehoahaz's age]. And [consistent with the people choosing the younger son first], it is written: “And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah, anointed him, and made him king in place of his father Josiah” [II Kings 23:30]. And a second proof that Shallum is Jehoahaz is that it is written that Pharaoh Neco took him [Jehoahaz] after he had reigned three months, brought him to Egypt, and he died there [II Kings 23:31-34]. And it is written in Jeremiah concerning Shallum: “he who went forth from this place shall never return, but shall die in the place where they carried him captive” [Jeremiah 22:11-12]. And do not be puzzled regarding what is written earlier [in Jeremiah 22, where prophecies about earlier kings seemingly placed after mentions of Zedekiah, e.g., Jeremiah 21:1]. For the beginning of the section is: “For thus says the Lord concerning the house of the king of Judah...” [Jeremiah 22:6]. [Jeremiah] recounts what the Lord had told him before Zedekiah reigned. And behold, he recounts what he prophesied concerning Jehoahaz (who is Shallum) after they had taken him to Egypt, and [also recounts prophecies] starting from “Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness...” [Jeremiah 22:13] concerning Jehoiakim. And there it is written [Jeremiah 22:24] that afterwards he prophesied concerning Jehoiachin (Coniah), for so it is written there [“As I live... though Coniah...”]. And all three of these reigned before Zedekiah. And in the book of Ezekiel, where he said: “Take up a lamentation for the princes of Israel” [Ezekiel 19:1], who died [i.e., whose dynasty ended] and none of their sons remained as king. He begins with Jehoahaz, who is Shallum, saying: “And they brought him with hooks to the land of Egypt” [Ezekiel 19:4]. And the [second] young lion [Ezekiel 19:5] is Jehoiakim, whom the king of Egypt made king. [Concerning him, Ezekiel says,] “They put him in a cage with hooks and brought him to the king of Babylon” [Ezekiel 19:9]. And similarly, it is written in Chronicles: “[Nebuchadnezzar] bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6]. And afterwards, he [Ezekiel] laments concerning Jehoiachin [symbolized by the vine]: “...her strong stem was consumed by fire” [Ezekiel 19:12]. And after that, he laments concerning Zedekiah: “Fire went out from the branch of its shoots, devoured its fruit, so that there remained in it no strong stem, no scepter to rule” [Ezekiel 19:14]. And behold, it has been clarified that they took Jehoiakim to Babylon. And let it not be difficult in your eyes because it says “to carry him to Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6] and does not say “and they carried him,” for behold, it is written concerning Zedekiah in Jeremiah: “and bound him in fetters to bring him to Babylon” [Jeremiah 39:7], and elsewhere it is written: “bound him in fetters and brought him to Babylon” [II Kings 25:7]. [Thus, Ibn Ezra argues, "to bring/carry" implies the action was completed]. And behold, it is written in Daniel: “In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar... came to Jerusalem and laid siege to it” [Daniel 1:1]. “And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them (va-yvi'em - וַיְבִיאֵם) to the land of Shinar...” [Daniel 1:2]. Now the meaning is: He brought Jehoiakim and the vessels to his [Nebuchadnezzar's] god's house... And afterwards it says: “and the vessels he brought into the treasure house of his god” [Daniel 1:2]. Linguistically, it is not plausible to interpret “and he brought them” (va-yvi'em) [in the first instance] as referring only to the vessels, because [if it meant only vessels, the specific mention later would be redundant; the repetition implies] the first "them" included Jehoiakim, since it [also] specifically states “and the vessels he brought...”. And it is written in Chronicles: “He bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar also brought some of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his palace in Babylon” [II Chronicles 36:6-7]. And Jeremiah prophesies concerning Jehoiakim: “He shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem” [Jeremiah 22:19]. Therefore, the one who says that the “third year of Jehoiakim's reign” (whom Pharaoh had made king) refers to the third year of his rebellion [against Nebuchadnezzar, which happened later] is mistaken. And therefore, I needed to explain [as follows]: That “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” (whom Pharaoh had made king), Nebuchadnezzar came against him and besieged Jerusalem, and captured it at the beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar [cf. Jeremiah 25:1], for so it is written. And behold, he [Nebuchadnezzar] took him [Jehoiakim] toward Babylon, and he [Jehoiakim] remained in fetters for about a year. Then Nebuchadnezzar commanded, and Jehoiakim returned to his kingship. “And Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him” [II Kings 24:1]. And Nebuchadnezzar or his troops came to Jerusalem, killed Jehoiakim, and dragged him outside the gates of Jerusalem. And his corpse was cast out and not buried, just as Jeremiah had prophesied [Jeremiah 22:19, Jeremiah 36:30]. And do not be puzzled by [the phrase]: “So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers” [II Kings 24:6], for behold, it is [also] written [regarding Moses]: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers” [Deuteronomy 31:16], yet they [his fathers] died [in Canaan or Egypt], and he [Moses] died [in Moab, outside the land]. [The phrase simply means 'died', according to Ibn Ezra]. And behold, his son Jehoiachin reigned three months [II Kings 24:8]. And Nebuchadnezzar captured him in the eighth year of his [Nebuchadnezzar's] reign [II Kings 24:12]. This was the eleventh year [since the start] of Jehoiakim['s reign]. And Zedekiah reigned eleven years [II Kings 24:18]. And [the end of his reign/destruction] was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar [II Kings 25:8]. And behold, [around the time of the end of Jehoiakim's reign and] the three months [of Jehoiachin], Jehoiakim was killed and his son Jehoiachin went into exile. And do not be puzzled because you find it written [regarding an exile in] “in the seventh year” of Nebuchadnezzar [Jeremiah 52:28, contrasting with the 8th year in Kings for Jehoiachin's exile], and similarly concerning Zedekiah, [an exile is mentioned in] the eighteenth year [Jeremiah 52:29], whereas [the final destruction was in] the nineteenth year [II Kings 25:8]. For in the counting of [regnal years of] kings, both methods [accession year vs. non-accession year counting] exist. Do we not know that Jeroboam and Rehoboam began reigning in the same month? And behold, it is written that Rehoboam reigned 17 years [I Kings 14:21]. And Abijah his son reigned after him in the 18th year of Jeroboam [I Kings 15:1]. [This works, Ibn Ezra implies, if counting methods differed, e.g., if Rehoboam's partial first year was counted as year 1 (non-accession), and Jeroboam's wasn't (accession), leading to an apparent one-year shift]. And behold, I will explain this to you: One calculation [system] reckons from the Exodus from Egypt starting from Nisan [as the new year for kings], or for the creation of the world from Tishrei [as the general new year]. And [sometimes] a single day in a year is counted as a [full] year. [One method, non-accession] counts from the day the king began to reign until the completion of his [first calendar] year [which counts as year 1, even if short], [while another method, accession] starts counting year 1 from the next New Year. Therefore, the 18th year can [effectively correspond to] the 19th, depending on the counting method. And an analogy: [Consider a child] born on Friday before sunset in this city, which is Rûdôm (?), during the Tammuz season [summer solstice] when the day is fully 16 hours long. Behold, the son is circumcised on the morning of the following Friday, which is the eighth day according to the Torah's calculation [Leviticus 12:3], even though it is [only just over] seven full 24-hour periods later and lacks [about] 16 hours [from being a full eight times 24 hours]. [This illustrates how part of a day/year counts as a whole unit for the calculation]. And do not be puzzled because you find in Ezekiel [Ezekiel 19:9, concerning Jehoiakim, the second lion]: “They put him in a cage... that his voice should no more be heard on the mountains of Israel,” for Nebuchadnezzar's servants intended this [permanent removal], even though [according to Ibn Ezra's reconstruction] he returned briefly. And the meaning of “Do you think you are a king because you compete in cedar?” [Jeremiah 22:15] that Jeremiah asked Jehoiakim, is that the prophecy concerning him means: Do you think your kingship will endure because you compete in [building luxurious palaces with] cedar? And now the difficult question remains: I have already mentioned that Zedekiah was 24 years old when his father died. Therefore, at the time of Jehoiakim's death and Jehoiachin's exile [approx. 11 years later], he would have been 35 years old (24 + 11 = 35). Yet it is written: “Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he began to reign” [II Kings 24:18; II Chronicles 36:11]! And this calculation [can be resolved if we understand] that he was called 'king' [or recognized as such by some] when he was 21 years old, [an event that happened earlier than his final accession]. 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 the Lord came to Jeremiah to make bonds and yokes and send them “to the king of Edom, the king of Moab... by the hand of the messengers who had come to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah” [Jeremiah 27:1-3]. For these [foreign] kings heard that Josiah had been killed, and they thought that Zedekiah, who was made king (or: who became designated as king) when he was 21 years old, would reign after him [Josiah, perhaps seen as the legitimate Davidic heir, despite Jehoiakim being installed by Egypt]. And there is no counter-argument from the [brief] reign of Jehoahaz, because the 'people of the land' made him king, and [the foreign kings] did not heed him (or perhaps: his brief reign was not widely known or considered stable), for he reigned only three months. [So, Ibn Ezra concludes, the reference to Zedekiah being 21 when he began to reign refers to this earlier point when he gained some recognition, likely around the 3rd/4th year of Jehoiakim, reconciling Jeremiah 27 with Kings/Chronicles]. There remains something [else] in the passage [of Jeremiah 27-28] to explain: namely, “And to Zedekiah king of Judah I spoke...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. Now, Jeremiah relates this matter of the yokes to Zedekiah at the time of his [main] reign after Jehoiachin's exile, and told him: “Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon...” [Jeremiah 27:12]. And there it is written [in the next chapter]: “And it came to pass the same year, in the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year...” [Jeremiah 28:1]. [This presents a sequence issue: yokes made under Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 27:1), message delivered to Zedekiah later (Jeremiah 27:12), yoke broken in Zedekiah's 4th year (Jeremiah 28:1)]. And the meaning of “in the fourth year” [in Jeremiah 28:1, Ibn Ezra suggests] relates to when Jehoiakim rebelled against the king of Babylon [which was after 3 years of service, hence in his 4th year of vassalage, connecting Jeremiah 28 to the timing of Jeremiah 27]. And there is one [possible] harmonization: that Jeremiah prepared the yokes in the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, but [delivered the message and] sent them [symbolically] in the first year of Zedekiah's reign. However, there is no [strong textual] basis for this harmonization. And there was a great commentator in Spain, who explained books with grammatical precision, and he explained [Jeremiah 27:1, reading 'Zedekiah' where the text has 'Jehoiakim'] and said: that 'Zedekiah' [should be read] instead of 'Jehoiakim'. And similarly he said [interpreting allegorically or emending text]: 'And after Absalom, he did not turn aside' [I Kings 2:28] means 'for he is Solomon'; and 'And it was on the seventh day' means 'which is the fourth [day]'; and 'Set bounds around the mountain' [Exodus 19:12] means 'which is the people'. And similarly [he interpreted] many words, about two hundred of them. And the wind carries them all away! For how is it possible in language that a person says one word and intends another?! One who says such things is considered among the insane! And I have already refuted all of them [these types of interpretations, perhaps elsewhere]. And it is better for him [such a commentator] to say 'I do not know,' than to overturn the words of the living God.

[Daniel 1:2] Va-yiten (וַיִּתֵּן - And [the Lord] delivered): It is written: “and some of the vessels of the House of God.” [It says "some"] because it was during the exile of Jehoiachin that the precious vessels (k'lei chemdat - כְּלֵי חֶמְדַּת, cf. II Chronicles 36:10) of the House of the Lord were brought to Babylon. For thus it is written [regarding Jehoiachin's exile]: “and the treasures of the House of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house” [II Kings 24:13].

[Daniel 1:3] Va-yomer ha-melech (וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ - Then the king ordered): This Ashpenaz was a saris (סָרִיס) [official/eunuch – Ibn Ezra will discuss the term below], and he was the appointed officer over all the sarisim (סָרִיסִים) [officials/eunuchs] who served [the king] and his wives. And it is written [in Isaiah, quoting the prophecy given to Hezekiah concerning his descendants]: “and they shall be sarisim [officials/eunuchs] in the palace of the king of Babylon” [Isaiah 39:7].

[Daniel 1:3] Rav (רַב - Chief): [Means] great, as in “the city of a great king” [Psalms 48:3]. Therefore, Yefet [ben Ali] said that they [those brought under this order] were Daniel and his companions, and his proof is that it says “of royal descent.” But he did not speak correctly. For the verse [Daniel 1:6] states: “And among these were, of the children of Judah...” [implying Daniel's group was specifically from Judah], and others [chosen were] “of royal descent” [and nobility, as per v. 3]. [Yefet implies] that they [Daniel and companions] were sarisim [in the sense of eunuchs]. But you will not find [any indication] that Daniel was a saris [eunuch]. Rather, it is written about him and his companions: “youths in whom there was no blemish” [Daniel 1:4]. And there is no blemish more severe than [being made] a saris [eunuch]! Furthermore, the king did not command [Ashpenaz] to teach Daniel and his companions the “script” (which is the writing of the Chaldeans) and their language merely [for any service], but specifically “that they might stand before the king” [Daniel 1:5], and not [primarily] before his wives [a role often assigned to eunuchs]. And if an objector argues: If your words are true that they were not sarisim [eunuchs], why did the king appoint the Chief of the Sarisim over them? The answer: Because the king commanded to seek from Israel “youths... handsome in appearance” [Daniel 1:4]. And wicked men, even today, are known for homosexual practices. Furthermore, if a youth is castrated (yesoras - יְסֹרַס), his intellect diminishes, and he [Nebuchadnezzar] was seeking for those standing before him to be knowledgeable in all wisdom, as [the text later] explains [Daniel 1:4]. And Rabbi Yehoshua said: The word sarisim (סָרִיסִים) in the Holy Tongue [Hebrew] has two meanings: The first is castrated ones [eunuchs, cf. Esther 1:10]. The second is ministers/officials/servants [cf. II Kings 24:15]. Thus, the Chief of the Sarisim was the chief over the king's ministers/servants. Like [an example using the word is]: “...with the sarisim and the mighty men (gibborim - גִּבֹּרִים)” [II Kings 24:14 - listing groups exiled]. And there is no need [to think based on this listing that] the sarisim were necessarily officers over the mighty men, simply because they were servants of King David [or perhaps, servants of the king, like David's officials were]. He [Nebuchadnezzar] did not castrate them [Daniel and companions]; rather, he took them thus in captivity. [While other captives] might have become guardians of his wives, according to the practice of kings to this day [and those might be eunuchs]. And similarly [an example where saris likely means official]: “...and the king’s wives and his sarisim” [II Kings 24:15, listing Jehoiachin's exiled household]. And it is [also] written: “And from the city he took one saris who was appointed over the men of war” [Jeremiah 52:25]. [This clearly shows saris can mean a high-ranking military official, not necessarily a eunuch].

[Daniel 1:3] U-min ha-partemim (וּמִן־הַפַּרְתְּמִים - And of the nobility): The word ha-partemim (הַפַּרְתְּמִים) is foreign/uncommon and is not found in Scripture except in the Scroll of Esther [Esther 1:3; Esther 6:9]. Perhaps it is a Chaldean or Persian word, similar in meaning to s'ganim (סְגָנִים - governors/prefects).

[Daniel 1:4] Yeladim (יְלָדִים - Youths): [The verse specifies youths without blemish] unlike 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” [cf. II Samuel 5:8]. And the meaning [of "house" there] is: the royal house of David.

[Daniel 1:4] Ve-tovei mar’eh (וְטוֹבֵי מַרְאֶה - And handsome of appearance): That they should not be sickly pale (lit. greenish) and appear like sick people.

[Daniel 1:4] U-maskilim be-chol-chochmah (וּמַשְׂכִּלִים בְּכָל־חָכְמָה - And proficient in all wisdom): A general term for all [types of wisdom].

[Daniel 1:4] Ve-yodʿei daʿat (וְיֹדְעֵי דַעַת - And knowledgeable): That they should know from the beginning of a speaker's statement what he intended to say at the end. For there are many wise men who do not grasp this until the speaker finishes.

[Daniel 1:4] U-mevinei maddaʿ (וּמְבִינֵי מַדָּע - And intelligent; lit. understanding science/knowledge): That they would be able to make others understand what is in their [own] heart and knowledge. As in [the verse]: “Do not curse the king, even in your thought (maddaʿ - מַדָּע)” [Ecclesiastes 10:20]. For there are wise men who struggle to express in language what is in their heart, except in a roundabout way and through crooked paths (be-orachot ʿaqalqalot - בְּאָרְחוֹת עֲקַלְקַלּוֹת).

[Daniel 1:4] Va-’asher koach bahem (וַאֲשֶׁר כֹּחַ בָּהֶם - And who had ability/strength in them): That their physical constitution (toldatam - תּוֹלַדְתָּם) should be strong enough to suppress a sneeze (ha-ʿittush - הָעִטּוּשׁ), and that they should stand constantly before him and be able to endure [discomfort or holding back bodily needs] when necessary (lit. "at the time of their need" - bi-shʿat tzorcham). And behold, he [Nebuchadnezzar] commanded to seek those in whom these qualities were found, and [such qualities combined] are not found in a youth younger than 15 years old (ט"ו - Tet Vav = 15). And behold, there was no need to teach them [these already proficient youths] for the three years except for the Chaldean script and their language, so they could speak with the king in his language. And behold, they [Daniel and companions] left Jerusalem [already relatively] mature (lit. 'great ones'). And behold, Daniel left [Jerusalem] at age fifteen (tet-vav shanah - ט"ו שָׁנָה) when Jehoiakim went to Babylon [referring to the events around Daniel 1:1-2, i.e., Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year]. And [after] eight years [of Nebuchadnezzar's] reign (וּשְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנִים מָלַךְ - u-shmoneh shanim malach), behold, [Daniel would be around] 23 (כ"ג). And some say [Daniel's life/prophecy extended through the time of] Zedekiah [i.e., until the Temple's destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year]. And behold, [adding approximately] 4, and 30, and 70 years (daled ve-lamed ve-ʿayin shanah) [to his age from the time of the exile], he [Daniel] would thus be very old in the days of Esther. Perhaps he had already died and did not ascend [return] for the Second Temple. And he [Daniel] is not Sheshbazzar, based on conclusive proofs (bi-re'ayot gemurot - בִּרְאָיוֹת גְּמוּרוֹת) [such as this calculation of his likely age and Ibn Ezra's identification of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel elsewhere, cf. commentary on Ezra 1:8].

[Daniel 1:5] Vayman (וַיְמַן - And the king allotted): This is a transitive verb (po'al yotze - פֹּעַל יוֹצֵא). And the meaning is: to give them portions/allotments (manot - מָנוֹת). And the meaning of pat-bag (פַּת־בַּג) is provisions/food (ma'achal - מַאֲכָל). And it is written in Scripture [using a related root word]: “And I will give you le-vag (כתיב: לְבַג - written form) / le-vaz (קרי: לְבַז - read form, for plunder)” [Ezekiel 25:7 - referring to the K'tiv/K'ri]. And the meaning [of bag and baz] is close. Perhaps the specific meaning of bag [here in Daniel] is cooked meat.

[Daniel 1:5] U-mi-yein mishtav (וּמִיֵּין מִשְׁתָּיו - And from the wine of his drinkings): And it is not written "and from the wine of his drinking" [using the singular form mishtehu (מִשְׁתֵּהוּ)]. Because there is a specific day [or designated type] for drinking white wine, or red, or wine from a specific known place [implying the plural mishtav refers to the variety of wines the king drank on different occasions or made available].

[Daniel 1:5] Ul’gadlam (וּלְגַדְּלָם - And to educate them): [The purpose was] to accustom them to stand [in service] and to know the protocols/procedures of royalty (mishpetei ha-meluchah - מִשְׁפְּטֵי הַמְּלוּכָה). And this is [related to the requirement that they have] “ability/strength in them” [Daniel 1:4].

[Daniel 1:5] U-mi-ketzatam (וּמִקְצָתָם - And at the end of which): [This word literally means "from their end".] Some say [it refers back to the earlier use of the root ק-צ-ה meaning "some", as in] "some of the youths" [were chosen, like] "some of the vessels of the House of God" [were taken, Daniel 1:2]. And [the construction using mi-ketzeh (מִקְצֵה) meaning "from the end/some of"] as in “from the edge/some of his brothers” [Genesis 47:2] is also relevant grammatically. And it [the word u-mi-ketzatam here] means: at the end of the aforementioned years [i.e., the three years]. And behold, similar to it is [the usage in Daniel 1:15]: “And at the end of (u-mi-ketzat - וּמִקְצָת) ten days...”

[Daniel 1:6] Vayehi bahem (וַיְהִי בָהֶם - And among them were): The reason [it specifies] “of the children of Judah” is because there were [also] descendants of Benjamin in Jerusalem [so this distinguishes Daniel and his companions tribally from other potential captives]. And these [four] were not [biological] brothers. For the Scripture says [in Aramaic, referring to the context of Daniel 2:13 and Daniel 2:18 where Daniel sought mercy for himself and his companions]: “...Daniel and his companions (chavrohi - חַבְרוֹהִי) [were sought] to be killed” [cf. Daniel 2:13, Daniel 2:18]. [The use of the word "companions" implies they were associates, not necessarily siblings].

[Daniel 1:7] Vayasem (וַיָּשֶׂם - And [the chief officer] set/gave): Just as Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah [Genesis 41:45]. And Rav Saadia [Gaon] said: that Bel [in Belteshazzar] is a Chaldean name/word, and likewise -Tzar [as in Belteshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar]. And similarly [names like] Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Sheshbazzar [contain these elements]. And the name Bel is explicitly [linked by Nebuchadnezzar himself when he says about Daniel/Belteshazzar] “according to the name of my god” [Daniel 4:5]. And [Saadia also states that] Shadrach [and] Meshach are Chaldean language [names]. And the Gaon [Saadia] said that Nego [in Abed-nego] is like Nebo [the name of a Babylonian deity], but [this is asserted] without proof.

[Daniel 1:8] Vayasem Daniel al-libbo (וַיָּשֶׂם דָּנִיֵּאל עַל־לִבּוֹ - And Daniel resolved; lit. And Daniel placed upon his heart): The king's pat-bag (פַּת־בַּג) [food/provisions] is forbidden [according to Jewish law], and the wine is also forbidden. And it is stated [regarding the prohibition, particularly of the wine - likely Ibn Ezra's Aramaic paraphrase summarizing the concept]: “[One might say/It implies] to pour it [the wine] as a libation according to their rite for their gods” [alluding to practices like those mentioned in Daniel 5:4].

[Daniel 1:9] Vayiten (וַיִּתֵּן - And God gave/disposed): The Gaon [Saadia Gaon] said: The meaning is that He [God] granted him [Daniel] favor (chen - חֵן), kindness (chesed - חֶסֶד), and compassion (rachamim - רַחֲמִים) in the eyes of the chief officer. [However,] he [the chief officer] did not [immediately] grant his [Daniel's] request. But he [the chief officer] responded [in such a way, as seen in the next verse] that he did not reveal his [Daniel's] secret [plan/request] to the king, because [if the king found out about the special diet and the youths looked worse for it] he [the king] would not let him [the chief officer] live. [Therefore, according to Saadia, the "favor" here was the officer's willingness to listen and his discreet handling of the sensitive request, rather than outright agreement at this point].

[Daniel 1:10] Vayomer (וַיֹּאמֶר - And the chief officer said): It is written “your food” (ma’achalkhem - מַאֲכַלְכֶם), and this refers to the pat (פַּת - food) and the bag (בַּג - provisions/meat). And “your drinkings” (mishteikhem - מִשְׁתֵּיכֶם) is a plural form, [meaning] from whatever the king drinks in the summer and winter seasons, they too would drink.

[Daniel 1:10] P’neikhem zo’afim (פְּנֵיכֶם זֹעֲפִים - Your faces looking troubled/out of sorts): like the faces of troubled/angry people.

[Daniel 1:10] Ke-gilchem (כְּגִילְכֶם - Like your age group): This word [gil (גִּיל) meaning age group/peer] has no parallel (re’a - רֵעַ) in Scripture [used this way], only in the words of our predecessors (kadmoneinu - קַדְמוֹנֵינוּ, i.e., the Sages of the Rabbinic period), [as in the common Rabbinic phrase] ben gilo (בֶּן גִּילוֹ - "one of his age group").

[Daniel 1:10] Ve-chiyavtem (וְחִיַּבְתֶּם - And you will endanger/obligate): This is derived from the root [ח-י/ו-ב] related to “his pledge” (chavolato - חֲבֹלָתוֹ) [cf. Ezekiel 18:7, Ezekiel 18:16] and “debt/liability” (chov - חוֹב). And they [words derived from this root] exist in two grammatical structures (binyanim - בִּנְיָנִים), but their root is [the same]. Similar to [the variation between] kam (קָם - he arose) and kiyyeim (קִיַּם - he confirmed/established) [in the phrase] “confirming (kiyyam - קִיַּם) these days of Purim” [Esther 9:32, where kiyyam is the Piel form from the root ק-ו-ם, usually conjugated as kam in the Qal].

[Daniel 1:11] Vayomer... HaMeltsar (וַיֹּאמֶר... הַמֶּלְצַר - And Daniel said... The guard/steward): This [HaMeltsar] is a Chaldean word [meaning] the one who gives the portions/allotments (manot - מָנוֹת). And behold, the meaning of “whom [the chief officer] had appointed” (asher minnah - אֲשֶׁר מִנָּה) is like “appointed/overseer” (ha-pkid - הַפְּקִיד). And in the language of the Sages, [it is like] memuneh (מְמֻנֶּה - appointed one/overseer). And for it [the word Meltsar itself] to be derived from [the concept of] "one who appoints/apportions (minnah) the portions (manot)" is very difficult [linguistically], according to Ibn Ezra. And especially since it is written concerning Daniel [and his companions, implying a specific context that perhaps makes a simple etymological link less likely in Ibn Ezra's view].

[Daniel 1:12] Nas-na (נַס־נָא - Test, please): This [Nas (נַס)] is the imperative form (leshon tzivui - לְשׁוֹן צִוּוּי), similar to [the use of na with an imperative in]: “Please entreat (chal-na - חַל־נָא) the favor of the Lord” [I Kings 13:6].

[Daniel 1:12] Yamin asarah (יָמִים עֲשָׂרָה - Ten days): And the reason for “ten days” is because a living being (chai - חַי) cannot endure hardship [or illness, without it becoming noticeable] for more than nine days. Thus the masters of natural science/biology (ba'alei ha-toladot - בַּעֲלֵי הַתּוֹלָדוֹת) have mentioned. And instead of the king's pat-bag (פַּת־בַּג) [food], give us legumes (zero'im - זֵרֹעִים). These are seeds/grains (gargirim - גַּרְגְּרִים) when they mature/dry. And instead of wine, give us water.

[Daniel 1:13] Ve-yera’u (וְיֵרָא֤וּ - And let [our appearance] be seen): [Meaning:] At the end of the ten [days, let] our appearance [be seen and compared]. And he [Daniel] mentioned “the king’s pat-bag [food]” and adopted a concise manner of speaking (derech ketzarah - דֶּרֶךְ קְצָרָה) in that he did not mention the wine [even though they were also abstaining from it].

[Daniel 1:14] Vayishma (וַיִּשְׁמַע - And he listened/agreed): Yefet ben Ali said: that every day he [the guard/Meltsar] would observe their appearance (lit. "see their faces") throughout the ten-day period (lit. "until ten days").

[Daniel 1:15] U-mi-ketzat... nir’ah (וּמִקְצָת... נִרְאָה - And at the end of... appeared): The meaning is: their entire appearance [looked good]. And the Gaon [Saadia Gaon] said: This was a great miracle. But [Ibn Ezra argues] there is no need [to assume a miracle], because they could have been eating rice (orez - אוֹרֶז), which is called in the Arabic language aruz (ארוז). And it [rice] is very esteemed/excellent, and more pleasing/palatable than wheat, and produces pure blood [according to medieval medicine]. It is the food of the people of India, who do not have wheat, and cooked dishes are made from it. And this rice flourishes/increases greatly [in volume] when it is cooked with milk. In general, a small amount of it [rice] satiates, and it is heavy in weight. Its grains are very slender and not round, and its nature [in humoral terms, i.e., its inherent quality according to medieval science] is hot and moist. And it is astonishing [coming] from a great Sage that he said it [the zero’im] was millet (dochan - דֹּחַן), whose grains are round. It lasts for many years and does not rot, but it is a poor food, and its nature is cold and dry [the opposite qualities needed for looking healthy, according to humoral theory]. Also, among the types of legumes (kitniyot - קִטְנִיּוֹת) are peas (afunim - אֲפוּנִים) – but not those [types] found in France, because those are cold [in nature], bad [food], and cause flatulence. Rather, the peas [Ibn Ezra refers to] are those found in Spain, Egypt, Rome [area], and Provence. They are of three types: some white, some red, and some black – and this [black] type is the most esteemed of all. All three types are hot and moist [in nature]. And their cooking water is a remedy for the liver. They brighten the face more than wine. (And a person can recognize that those [peas] in France are without a 'mouth' [perhaps referring to a distinct seam or characteristic shape], whereas the three [good] types have a 'mouth'). And behold, rice and [these good] peas are [types of] legumes/seeds (zero’im), and they make the flesh healthy (mavri’im et ha-basar - מַבְרִיאִים אֶת הַבָּשָׂר) [echoing the verse's phrase beri’ei basar (בְּרִיאֵי בָשָׂר), healthy of flesh]. Furthermore, any food that is desired by the soul/appetite is more beneficial than food that the soul/appetite does not like, even if [the disliked food] is hot and moist according to the [ideal] nature of living things [i.e., even if it matches the body's ideal humoral balance]. And behold, these [youths] were eating something that their soul/appetite desired [since they chose it over the king's food], and [therefore] it was beneficial for them.

[Daniel 1:16] Vayehi... nosei (וַיְהִי... נֹשֵׂא - And it was... removing): [Meaning the guard/Meltsar] took it upon himself (be-nafsho - בְּנַפְשׁוֹ) [to consistently remove their royal rations]. And that which he [Daniel] was brief in mentioning [i.e., omitted mentioning] the wine [in Daniel 1:13], he [the guard, acting, or the text, describing] mentioned it now. And the Nun [element] of legumes (zeronim - זֵרְעֹנִים) is additional [forming the -on suffix before the plural ending, rather than the simpler plural zera'im (זְרָעִים)]. Like [the K'tiv (written form) in Psalms 123:4] le-ga’yonim (לגאיונים - referring to 'the haughty'), and many [words] are like them [formed with such additional elements].

[Daniel 1:17] Veha-yeladim (וְהַיְלָדִים - And [to] these youths): The reason [it specifies] “the four of them” (arba’atam - אַרְבַּעְתָּם) is [to emphasize] that they were equal in all [general] wisdom. However, Daniel had an additional [ability] beyond them, in that he understood every vision and the interpretation of dreams, for he alone was a prophet, and not the [other] three.

[Daniel 1:18] U-le-miketzat (וּלְמִקְצָת - And at the end of): [Meaning] at the end of the three years [mentioned in Daniel 1:5].

[Daniel 1:18] La-havi’am (לַהֲבִיאָם - To bring them): [Meaning:] before the king.

[Daniel 1:19] Vayedaber (וַיְדַבֵּר - And the king spoke): In his [own] language [i.e., Chaldean/Aramaic, which the youths had learned].

[Daniel 1:19] Ve-lo nimtza (וְלֹא נִמְצָא - And none was found): [Meaning] from all the Jewish youths who were exiled, [none were found] like these four.

[Daniel 1:19] Vaya’amdu lifnei ha-melech (וַיַּעַמְדוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ - And they stood before the king): They alone [were selected for this service from the group].

[Daniel 1:20] Ve-chol (וְכֹל - And every): This indicates that Nebuchadnezzar [himself] knew wisdom, and he found each one of these four knew ten measures/times (eser yadot - עֶשֶׂר יָדוֹת) [more] than every magician (chartom - חַרְטֹם) and exorcist/astrologer (ashshaf - אַשָּׁף). And it is possible that ten (eser) is [treated linguistically as] a plural term, like [in the phrase] “than ten rulers” (me-asarah shallitim - מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים) [Ecclesiastes 7:19], because ten is a sum total/complete count (sach cheshbon - סָךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן). And the author of Sefer Yetzirah said: “Ten Sefirot of Nothingness” (eser sefirot blimah - עֶשֶׂר סְפִירוֹת בְּלִי מָה) [Sefer Yetzirah 1:4]. And the magicians (chartummim - חַרְטֻמִּים) are not the exorcists/astrologers (ashshafim - אַשָּׁפִים), because behold, it is written [elsewhere]: “to call the magicians (chartummim) and the exorcists/astrologers (ashshafim)” [Daniel 2:2, listing them separately]. And there [in the commentary on that verse] I will explain them.

[Daniel 1:21] Vayehi (וַיְהִי - And [Daniel] was): The meaning is that he was in Babylon until the first year (shnat achat - שְׁנַת אַחַת) of King Cyrus. And if it had been written "until one year" (shanah achat - שָׁנָה אַחַת), it would seem that a complete year had passed. But by its saying [using the construct form] shnat achat (lit. "year of one"), the meaning is [that he was there sometime] within that year [not necessarily until its end].