(א – ג) הסתירה ממ"ש שבשנת שלש למלכות יהויקים בא נ"נ ירושלים ונבוכדנצר לא מלך עד שנת ד' ליהויקים? (התבאר בפירוש על ספר מלכים), למה כפל שהביאם בית אלהיו ושנתן הכלים בית אוצר אלהיו?, ולמה כפל מבני ישראל ומזרע המלוכה?:

Questions: (1–3) What is the contradiction in saying that in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem, when Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until the fourth year of Jehoiakim? (This was explained in the commentary on the Book of Kings.) Why does it repeat that he brought them to the house of his god and that he placed the vessels in the treasury house of his god? And why does it repeat “from the children of Israel” and “from the royal seed”?

In the third year — This reckoning contradicts what is stated in Book of Jeremiah (25:1), that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, the Sages explained it as referring to the third year of his rebellion. And Abraham ibn Ezra explained that it means at the end of the third year, which is [effectively] the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It can also be said that Jehoiakim began his reign in Adar, and they counted his first year from Nisan, as stated in Tractate Rosh Hashanah (2a), that the years of kings are counted from Nisan. Thus, if he reigned on the 29th of Adar, once the first day of Nisan arrived, a year was already reckoned for him—while the Chaldeans counted that as the first year. There are additional explanations of this, and I have already written about it in my commentary on Kings. According to the explanation of Ibn Ezra, Scripture relates that immediately upon Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to the throne, he came to Jerusalem. And although in the days of Zedekiah the siege lasted many days, here, at this time…

“Hashem delivered Jehoiakim into his hand,” — immediately, through Divine providence. And do not say that Jehoiakim went out to him of his own accord in peace; for he took with him some of the vessels of the House of God. Had he gone out willingly, he would not have been taken captive to Babylon, nor would the vessels of the Temple have been taken—for this is contrary to the laws of kings, who do not act in this manner except against one who wars against them with force and is conquered by might. Thus, it is clear that this occurred through conquest and by Divine providence. However, Nebuchadnezzar did not recognize that this was the work of God, and instead attributed his victory to idolatry, as it is said: “Then his spirit passes on and he transgresses, and he is guilty—this his power is his god” (cf. Book of Habakkuk 1:11). And he brought Jehoiakim, together with the vessels, to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, in order to give thanks to idolatry. And the vessels he did not place in the royal treasury, but rather deposited them in the treasury of his god. This serves as an introduction to the punishment that later came upon the house of Nebuchadnezzar because of these very vessels, in the days of his grandson.

“And the king said,” — He commanded that youths be brought, both from among the common people—this is what is meant by “from the children of Israel”—and from among the elite, “from the royal seed and from the nobles.” For since he desired that they stand before him, he would assign each one a role according to his lineage: those from the royal seed would serve in the royal court, while those from the noble families would later serve as officials in Judah, subject to him, and familiar with the customs of the Chaldeans and their language. The common people, meanwhile, would be his attendants in more minor matters. Additionally, because Nebuchadnezzar was wise and discerning—as it is written, “and in every matter of wisdom and understanding that the king inquired of them”—he himself would test the sages. He had wise men in his kingdom from all lands and conducted himself according to their counsel. He had learned of the wisdom of the Jews, that they were exceedingly wise due to the Divine Presence and the prophecy that was among them, as is mentioned regarding their great wisdom in Eicha Rabbah. Therefore, he commanded that youths be brought from among the Jews so that their wisdom might be before his eyes.

מה רצה בהכפלת דבריו משכילים בכל חכמה ויודעי דעת ומביני מדע, מה ההבדל ביניהם?:

Questions: What did he intend by repeating his words: “skilled in all wisdom,” “knowers of knowledge,” and “understanders of science”? What is the difference between them?

“Children (youths)” — He commanded that the youths be perfect in both matter and form. With respect to the perfection of the body, he said that “there should be no blemish in them,” meaning that there should be no deficiency in their physical makeup. There is a distinction between “blemish” (mum) and “any defect” (me’um): a mum is a significant defect, like those that disqualify priests, whereas me’um is related to me’umah (“anything at all”), meaning that nothing whatsoever that could be considered disgraceful should be found in them. The Sages said: even a minor mark such as a scar from bloodletting. This also includes fine appearance—namely, proper bodily structure, harmonious proportion, and pleasing form that elicits grace; and “of good appearance,” meaning they should have attractive eyes and pleasing looks. It also includes proper complexion—not overly pale (which indicates sluggishness), nor dark, but rather a ruddy fairness. With respect to the perfection of form (intellect), he said: “and skilled in all wisdom.” It has been explained by us that there is a distinction between wisdom (ḥokhmah) and knowledge (daʿat). Daʿat refers to matters grasped through the senses or through first principles, in which clear knowledge is possible—such as natural science, geometry, and medicine. But ḥokhmah concerns guidance between good and evil, matters that are not attained through demonstrative knowledge or through the faculty of understanding (binah). Nowhere do we find “understanding of wisdom,” for wisdom is attained through the intellect (sekel), a sharp faculty that penetrates matters beyond ordinary understanding and knowledge, as explained in Book of Proverbs. “And knowers of knowledge and understanders of science” — There is a distinction between daʿat and maddaʿ. Particular matters grasped through the senses and examination are called daʿat. But the total body of knowledge collected by many scholars, forming a general system and an organized discipline across various fields—for example, the sciences of nature or medicine as a structured and preserved system agreed upon by scholars—is called maddaʿ. Those who can derive one thing from another within such systems, drawing inferences and comparisons through the power of understanding, are called “understanders of science.” “And who have the strength to stand” in the king’s palace — He further required that they be capable of serving before him, among his attendants and sages who stand in his presence. For this, two additional qualifications were necessary: (1) A physical qualification—that they be strong and firm in their inner constitution, able to stand in the king’s palace, which requires physical endurance to remain standing. As the Sages said: they would restrain themselves from laughter and from sleep, and even hold themselves when they needed to relieve themselves. (2) “And to teach them literature” — that they have the capacity to receive instruction in writing and language. This requires a strong memory, to learn language quickly. For there are those who learn the spoken language but not the script, and cannot read from a text. Therefore it says “the literature and the language of the Chaldeans.” Among them, Aramaic was the language of the common people, whereas “Chaldean” was the language of the sages, used for elevated and refined discourse of wisdom. It is known that such eloquent and exalted speech requires a special inner faculty and a strong imaginative power. Hence it says “and to teach them” with the conjunctive “and,” indicating an additional requirement.

“And the king appointed for them,” — Scripture describes how the king oversaw these youths with the utmost care: (1) He himself prepared what was needed for their sustenance. (2) It was “from the king’s delicacies,” from what he ate at the royal table. For refined foods and aromatic wines expand the mind, improve the bodily constitution, and refine the brain; fermented and fragrant substances sharpen the intellect. (3) He designated for them “a daily portion,” for the king’s foods varied from day to day according to the nature of the time and season, following the regimen of physicians who supervised his health—adjusting foods according to cold, heat, and bodily temperament. In this same manner, care was taken for the youths as well. (4) He allowed them ample time, “to raise them for three years,” which is sufficient for instruction, as the Sages said: any student who does not see a sign of blessing in his learning after three years will never see it. All of this preparation was so that some of the youths—those who would succeed in their studies—would “stand before the king,” and serve him in his work. This was similar to the practice among the kings of Egypt and the kings of Togarmah, who would gather many youths from among the Christians, raise them, and those found suitable would stand before them.

“And among them there were,” — Since many youths were taken, among them were four “from the children of Judah,” meaning from the line of distinguished lineage, from the house of David—for royal lineage belonged to Judah, as “he prevailed among his brothers.” [This stands in contrast to the general populace, who are called “the children of Israel.”] It has already been explained in the words of the Sages that Daniel was of the seed of the house of David, as Isaac Abarbanel elaborates at length—unlike the view of Gersonides.

למה לא שם שמות רק לאלה הילדים הארבעה?:

Questions: Why were names given only to these four youths?

“And the chief of the eunuchs assigned them names.” — He did not change the names of the other youths, for only those who entered into the king’s service and rose to prominence had their names changed, as Nebuchadnezzar changed the name of Zedekiah. Furthermore, to Daniel he gave the name Belteshazzar, which was the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s god—because he immediately recognized his distinction and perceived in him something divine, as it is stated later (4:5): “whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god,” and again (5:12): “whom the king named Belteshazzar.” It is thus clear that this was by royal command, and because he saw in him a superior aptitude for wisdom. But to his companions he gave other names, not named after idolatry; and therefore…

(ח – טו) למה לא בקש דניאל תיכף מן המלצר?, ולמה לא אמרו לשר הסריסים שינסה אותם וכמו שאמרו אל המלצר?, ומה זה שבקש אשר לא יתגאל, שבקשה כזאת באין ספק יעלה חמת מלך מלכי מות כשיאמר כי שולחן המלך מגואל הוא ונבזה אכלו?, ומז"ש שה' נתן אותו לחסד ולרחמים והלא לא מלא בקשתו?:

Questions:(8–15) Why did Daniel not immediately make his request of the steward? And why did they not say to the chief of the eunuchs that he should test them, as they later said to the steward? What is meant by his request that he not be defiled—for such a request would surely provoke the wrath of a king whose anger is like the anger of death, if one were to say that the king’s table is defiled and his food contemptible? And what is meant by the statement that God granted him kindness and compassion—did he not, in fact, fail to obtain his request?

“And Daniel set it upon his heart” — Daniel reasoned that he had been designated for idolatry, and that they intended to lead him away from his faith; and that the food and wine assigned to him would be offerings to the dead and libations of their gods. (Indeed, some commentators explain that “the king’s delicacies” refers to food offered to idolatry.) “And he requested of the chief of the eunuchs” — Since he understood this as an attempt to make him transgress his religion, and that the king would insist that they eat specifically from this food—and that refusal would be considered rebellion—he resolved in his mind to give up his life for this, in accordance with the law when one is compelled to abandon his faith. Therefore, when he made his request of the chief of the eunuchs, he did not offer excuses or other reasons; rather, he stated explicitly “that he not defile himself.” He made it known to him that, according to his faith, this bread was defiled, and that he did not wish to defile himself. Even though this placed him in great danger, he did not conceal the truth. And this was done by Daniel alone, who perceived that he had been designated for idolatry—not by his companions. Therefore, only he made this request.

“And God granted,” — It was through Divine providence that He placed him in favor: to forgive him for this offense which he had spoken at the risk of his life, and also for compassion—for he saw the distress of his soul on account of his faith, and had mercy upon him, and his heart was stirred toward him. Thus, not only did he refrain from punishing him, but he spoke to him gently.

“And the chief of the eunuchs said,” — He excused himself, explaining that he could not do this because of fear of the king. He clarified to them: if I reveal your request to the king, “I fear my lord the king who has appointed your food,” since he himself arranged your provisions in this manner. If it becomes known to him that you do not wish to eat from his delicacies, it will be considered rebellion against the king. And if I conceal the matter from the king, I am afraid for another reason—“why should he see your faces looking sad?” For when he sees you in comparison with the other youths, he will ask: why do your faces appear downcast? This will be recognized by comparison with the other youths, since they are of your age, similar to you in years, upbringing, and diet—so why do your faces appear worse than theirs? Through such questioning he will detect the matter, and you would endanger my life before the king. It may also be explained that Daniel only requested that he not be defiled, and intended to receive other suitable foods in their place, prepared in a permissible manner. In that case, there would be no concern that their faces would appear sad, but only a concern of rebellion. Thus he said, “I fear the king.” However, if he were to give them vegetables from the king’s table, there would be no concern of rebellion, since they would still be eating from the king’s provisions. Yet regarding this he said, “why should he see your faces looking sad?”

“And Daniel said,” — He did not present his request immediately to the steward who was under the chief of the eunuchs, for he feared that the matter would become known to the chief of the eunuchs, who supervised the food at all times. Rather, only after he had already presented his request before the chief official and found favor in his eyes did he know that he would overlook the actions of the steward, and that he himself would not be held accountable for what the steward might do. Therefore, he then presented his request to the steward. But to him he did not reveal his true intention—that he did not wish to defile himself; rather, he simply said to him…

“Test your servants,” — It is as if he said: in order to achieve the goal—that they be of good appearance and healthy flesh—this would be attained more effectively through simple foods than through refined delicacies, which generate many illnesses and harmful conditions. For those devoted to a life of discipline and contemplation, simple foods are more beneficial, both for the clarity of the mind and for the health of the body. And this could be demonstrated through an experiment: that he test them for ten days. Isaac Abarbanel already cited, in the name of physicians, that the harmful effects of poor nutrition become recognizable in a person’s body within ten days—at which point the damage becomes evident in the appearance of the face.

“Test your servants,” — As if he were saying: to achieve the goal—that they be of fair appearance and healthy flesh—this will be attained more effectively through simple foods than through refined delicacies, which produce many illnesses and harmful conditions. For those devoted to a life of restraint and contemplation, simple foods are more beneficial, both for sharpening the mind and for maintaining bodily health. And this can be demonstrated through an experiment: let him test them for ten days. Isaac Abarbanel already recorded, in the name of physicians, that the harmful effects of inferior foods become noticeable in a person’s nourishment within ten days, at which point their damage becomes evident in the appearance of the face.

“And he listened to them,” — It was through Divine providence that he agreed to test them. In this way, there was no danger for him, for he knew that the king would not see them until the allotted time was completed. They requested only ten days; and if he were to see that the food caused harm, he could refrain from continuing to give them vegetables. Moreover, the steward did not know that the king specifically insisted that they eat from his delicacies; he assumed that the king’s intent was only that they be healthy and well-nourished. Thus, if this could be achieved through simple foods, he would not be transgressing the king’s command. For this reason, he listened to them.

“And at the end,” — It was through Divine providence that their appearance was good, and they were also healthy in flesh. This was beyond the natural order, for vegetables do not fatten the body in the same way as meat and wine.

“And the steward was…” — He derived benefit from this arrangement, for in place of the vegetables he gave them, he would take for himself the king’s delicacies. Thus Scripture recounts the holiness of Daniel and his companions: that they abandoned the delicacies to which they had been accustomed from their youth and chose simple foods instead. And through the abundance of their holiness and restraint, they ate with joy and gladness of heart, to the point that they were healthy in flesh. Especially notable was the holiness of Daniel, who risked his life over this matter, for he was in real danger because of it. And it makes known how Divine providence hovered over them in accordance with their preparation.

“And the youths,” — According to their preparation, so did the Divine influence rest upon them. These four youths, who were equal in their abstention from forbidden foods, were likewise equal in knowledge and intellect, surpassing the other youths who had defiled themselves with the king’s delicacies. And Daniel, who surpassed them in self-sacrifice, merited a spirit of holy God. “Knowledge and understanding” — its meaning is: knowledge in every kind of literature, and understanding in all wisdom. For knowledge (maddaʿ) applies to matters grasped through the senses or through demonstrative reasoning, and this pertains to every kind of practical or scientific text, such as natural science, medicine, and the like. But with respect to wisdom (ḥokhmah), the language of understanding (haskel) is more appropriate, as explained in the commentary on Book of Proverbs—that wisdom is not attained through demonstrative proofs, but through the intellect, a sharp faculty that apprehends matters of wisdom. “And Daniel understood all visions and dreams” — that is, there are interpreters of dreams who rely on the strength of their imaginative faculty, yet they do not understand everything, only some dreams. But Daniel understood through the influence of the holy spirit, and therefore he comprehended all of them without distinction—not merely part of a dream, but its entirety in full. This was the distinction of Joseph and Daniel and others like them, who perceived through the spirit of God. A dream occurs without a visual spectacle, whereas a vision presents an actual image—such as the statue seen by Nebuchadnezzar and similar cases. A vision (ḥazon) may also occur while awake, through the strengthening of the imaginative faculty.

“And at the end of the days,” — that is, at the conclusion and completion of the three years, which had been appointed by the king to bring them forward—then he brought them.

“And he spoke,” — Then he spoke with all the youths in order to examine them, and among them all none were found like Daniel. Therefore, they remained standing in his court.

“And in every matter,” — After they stood before him and became his ministers and counselors, whenever any matter arose in which the king needed to inquire of his sages concerning wisdom and understanding, he would gather all the magicians and the enchanters to hear their counsel—and Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among them—he consistently found that theirs was tenfold greater in wisdom than all his other sages.

“And Daniel was,” — Until that time he remained in the royal court; for after he was cast into the lions’ den, he withdrew from his service and established his residence in Shushan, as Isaac Abarbanel writes in the name of Josephus.