“And Darius the Mede received the kingdom,” — that is, he received the kingdom from them, which indicates that they accepted him willingly after their king had died. And what it says that he was sixty-two years old—the Sages explained this to indicate that he was born on the day Nebuchadnezzar entered the Temple in the days of Jehoiakim. It also means that since he was old and advanced in years, he was not able to manage such a vast kingdom by himself; therefore, in order to lighten the burden upon him…

“It pleased Darius, and he set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, that they should be throughout the whole kingdom; and above them three administrators, of whom Daniel was one, that these satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss,” — He divided his kingdom into one hundred and twenty regions (for Ahasuerus after him ruled over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, and perhaps the remaining seven were governed by the seven princes of Persia and Media), and appointed over them satraps. These satraps were established to oversee the affairs of the provinces on behalf of the king, for the governors and local officials were chosen from among the people of the provinces, whereas the satraps were called “the king’s satraps,” since they were appointed by him to ensure that the provincial rulers did not act against the king’s laws. Above the satraps were three royal administrators, to receive reports from them and to advise them in all their matters; and through this the king would not suffer loss—meaning not only that he would not suffer politically, since those appointed in each province would supervise affairs for the king’s benefit, but also that he would not suffer personally from the burden and strain of ruling such a vast kingdom.

“Then this Daniel distinguished himself above the administrators and the satraps, because an extraordinary spirit was in him, and the king planned to set him over the entire kingdom,” — for Daniel demonstrated to all a superior mode of governance compared to theirs, and this was due to his great wisdom. And the king saw that it was better to entrust the entire administration to one intelligent and discerning man like him, for “through the transgression of a land many are its princes, but through a man of understanding and knowledge it endures.”

(ה) למה כפל וכל עלה ושחיתא לא יכלין להשכחה, וכי שלו ושחיתה לא השכחת ביה?:

Questions: (5) Why does it repeat, “any fault or corruption they could not find,”—for is not a “fault” the same as “corruption”; could they not find either in him?

Then the administrators and the satraps were jealous of him and sought to find a charge against Daniel in matters of the kingdom, — that they might show that he had done something improper in the administration of the kingdom, such as accepting bribes, deceit, and the like. But they were unable to find any charge or corruption (in matters of the kingdom), because he was trustworthy; therefore no real fault could be found in him, nor could they fabricate accusations against him, since he was established as reliable and no one would believe false claims about him. And no error or corruption was found in him, — they also searched for some wrongdoing in his personal conduct, outside of his official duties, and found no sin or transgression in him. Then they said that they would be able to find a charge against him through the law of his God.

(ח - ט) איך קבל מהם המלך דבר סכלות כזאת לגזור שלא יתפלל איש לאלהיו, התחת אלהי' הוא?, הלא גם המלך אל אלהים יתפלל? וגם למה לא יבקשו אז דבר מאדם, ואיך יתנו בזה תוקף למלכותו?, היש עצה נבערה מזו?,

Questions: (8–9) How did the king accept from them such a foolish proposal—to decree that no man should pray to his god? Is he above the gods, that even the king himself would not pray to God? And why did they require that one not make a request of any man? How does this strengthen his kingship? Is there a more senseless plan than this?

Then these officials conspired and came suddenly before the king, and said to him that all the ministers of the provinces had agreed to establish a decree: that whoever makes a request for thirty days to any god or man except the king shall be cast into the lions’ den, — for during the first thirty days that the king was in Babylon, envoys from all the peoples and provinces came to him. They said that they had agreed to this in order to strengthen his rule in the eyes of all the nations: that during these thirty days, every person should bring his requests directly to the king himself. Whether requests one person has of another—the king stands ready to fulfill the request of anyone who asks, for he desires to do kindness, and his hand is wide and open to satisfy every petitioner. And likewise, every prayer and supplication that they would normally direct to God should be brought to the king, for his hand is like the hand of a god to fulfill every desire. In these days of favor, at the beginning of his reign, he would grant all human requests so that there would be no need to seek anything from anyone else. Therefore, whoever seeks something from another is as one who denies the king’s goodness and kindness, or denies his ability—as if the king is unwilling or unable to grant every request—and such a person insults the king and shall be cast into the lions’ den. Thus it says, “to establish the king’s decree,” meaning that through this they would strengthen the kingdom so that it would endure, for in this way they would incline the hearts of all the peoples toward him. In this manner they persuaded him that it was for the king’s benefit and to strengthen his rule. Therefore they agreed to impose a strict prohibition upon anyone who transgressed, treating him as one who rebels against the king. And they requested: first, that the king approve the matter—as it says, “now establish the decree,”; and second, that it be written and sealed with the king’s signet ring, so that it would be according to the law of the Medes and Persians, that a decree written in the king’s name and sealed with his signet cannot be revoked.

(יא - יב) למה מסר דניאל א"ע למיתה בשביל התפלה, וחי בהם כתיב, ומן הדין אינו מחויב למסור נפש רק על ע"א וג"ע וש"ד, בפרט שהיה יכול להתפלל בלחש שלא ירגיש אדם בו ורחמנא לבא בעי, ועכ"פ בחדר חשוך מוסגר שהחלונות אין מעכבים התפלה, ומלשון הכתוב מבואר שלא נשמר כלל, וכי לא ידע כי בנפשו הוא?, ומז"ש כל קבל די הוה עבד מקדמת דנא, והלא היום כפשע בינו ובין המות?:

Questions: (11–12) Why did Daniel endanger himself to death on account of prayer? Does it not say, “and you shall live by them”? According to the law, one is only required to give up his life for idolatry, forbidden relations, and murder. Especially since he could have prayed quietly without anyone noticing, for “the Merciful One desires the heart”; or at least in a closed, dark room—for windows are not essential for prayer. Yet from the language of the verse it appears that he did not guard himself at all—did he not know that his life was at stake? And what is the meaning of “just as he had done before”—was not this day the difference between life and death?

“And Daniel, though he knew that the decree had been signed, entered his house; and his windows were open in his upper chamber toward Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done previously,” — it explains that although Daniel knew of this decree, he did not cease his prayers three times a day, nor did he hide to pray in another house where he would not be known, or in a concealed place within his own house. Rather, he entered his house and went up to the upper chamber, whose windows were open toward the south, in the direction of Jerusalem, and he prayed while kneeling, in such a way that all the neighbors could see through the open windows that he was kneeling and praying. But why did he act in this way? Was he not obligated to preserve his life, and not required to give it up for a positive commandment—especially according to the view that prayer is rabbinic? And the king did not intend to force anyone to abandon his religion—so why did he place himself in such danger? He explains: “just as he had done before,” — that is, the king’s decree was not intended to abolish religion or prevent a person from fulfilling his obligations to God. Rather, the purpose of the decree was only that anyone who wished to make a new, specific request should bring it to the king, who would fulfill it, and there would be no need to ask from God or from another person. However, this did not include regular prayer, which does not consist of making new personal requests, but rather of thanking, praising, and praying for general matters—such as life and forgiveness of sin—which have nothing to do with the king. This was not included in the decree according to its intent, which was to demonstrate that the king was prepared to fulfill the requests of all. Thus, since it was known to all that Daniel prayed such prayers daily, three times a day, as part of his religious practice, and this was not what the king intended to forbid—for he did not aim to nullify a commandment or cause anyone to transgress the commandments of his God—therefore Daniel trusted in this and was not afraid. For in the decree it is written “that he shall not make a request,” meaning not to petition, whereas concerning Daniel it says “he prayed and gave thanks,” and there is a great difference between praying and requesting: prayer is directed only to God, and is not comparable to one person making a request of another; it is the pouring out of one’s soul to God alone, and thus it was not included at all in the decree.

“Then those men came in a tumult and found Daniel making requests and supplications before his God,” — the wording is changed to say that they found him making requests, for their intention was to accuse him as if he had made a specific personal request in his prayer, and thus transgressed the king’s command.

(יג) מז"ש על אסר מלכא, הלא אסר רשמת, מה רצו בשאלה זאת, והלא הדת כתובה בדתי פרס ומדי, והי"ל רק לאמר שדניאל התחייב מיתה כי עבר על הדת?:

Questions: (13) Why does it say, “concerning the king’s decree,” rather than “the decree that was written”? What did they intend by asking this? Since the law was already written among the laws of Media and Persia, they should simply have said that Daniel was liable to death for transgressing the law.

“Then they approached and spoke before the king,” — since they knew that Daniel could be justified (as explained above), and they feared that when the king understood their intent he might reinterpret the decree in a way that would acquit Daniel, therefore they came as if posing a question about the king’s decree—that is, presenting it as a matter requiring clarification. They said: “Was it not written that every man who makes a request…” — asking whether this prohibition applies to every individual and to every kind of petition, for they intended to establish that it was a comprehensive decree applying to all people and all types of requests. And the king answered: “The matter is certain, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked,” — and thereby he affirmed their interpretation.

“Then,” — at that point they found an opportunity to inform against Daniel, that he had not paid attention to the king’s command nor to the prohibition.

(טו) באיזה אופן רצה המלך להצילו וכי לא ידע כי כתב אשר נכתב בשם המלך אין להשיב?:

Questions: (15) In what way did the king intend to save him? Did he not know that a decree written in the king’s name cannot be revoked?

“Then, when the king heard the matter, it was very displeasing to him, and he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him,” — that is, the king then reconsidered his position and said that this decree did not apply to Daniel, since he was praying a fixed prayer three times each day as part of his religious practice, not making a new personal request about a specific matter. It is not proper to override religious obligation, and the decree did not include general prayer that is not a personal petition. And the word “bal” (in “set his heart”) implies negation—meaning that Daniel is not included in the decree, and that it does not apply to him. In this way, the king strove until sunset to save him.

“Then,” — they pressed upon the king and said: “Know, O king, that it is the law of the Medes and Persians that any decree which the king establishes cannot be changed,” — that is, no modifications may be made to it; it must be carried out according to its plain meaning, and one may not reinterpret it or alter its intent by claiming that it does not apply to a particular person or case. In this way they prevailed over the king.

“Your God,” — the king maintained that Daniel was not liable to death according to the law, since he was engaged in his regular, fixed prayer, and this was not included in the prohibition; rather, they were perverting the judgment against him. Therefore he said that on this account—that you serve Him continually and are justified in your case—your God will save you.

“And a stone was brought and placed over the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his signet and with the signet of his nobles, so that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel,” — that is, so that his enemies would not kill him with stones, or mock and abuse him with words; and it was also sealed with their signet rings so that they could not later claim that they had fed the lions a large amount of meat. Thus they left Daniel.

“Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting, and no diversions were brought before him,” — some explain this as referring to a table of food, and others as joy or entertainment, and others as his concubines; “and his sleep fled from him.”

“Then the king arose at dawn, when it had just begun to grow light,” (as in “a shining light dawned upon them”), “and he went in haste to the lions’ den,” to find out what had happened to Daniel.

“And when he came near the den, he cried out to Daniel in a voice of anguish,” — and Daniel did not answer him at first, because he did not recognize the voice, which was distressed. “The king spoke and said to Daniel: Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to save you from the lions?” — that is, since He is a living God, He knows His servants; and since you serve Him continually, surely He would desire to save you. The only remaining question is whether He has the ability to save you.

“Then Daniel spoke with the king: My God sent His angel and shut the mouths of the lions, and they did not harm me, because innocence was found in me before Him,” — for before Him I had merit in that I prayed, since I did not transgress the king’s command, for the decree was not intended to abolish the commandments of God. And thus he said, “and also before you I have done no harm,” — I did nothing corrupt, for I did not violate your command in this matter. He implies that if he had transgressed the king’s command, he would not have had merit before God, who commands both reverence for God and for the king. And he also means that the very merit found in him before God was itself the “angel” that saved him from the lions, as it is said, “if there be for him an angel, an intercessor, to declare a man’s uprightness”—referring to merits that act like angels to redeem a person from destruction.

“Then it was very pleasing to the king” — this answer and the deliverance — “and he commanded that Daniel be lifted up out of the den, and no injury was found on him,” and it explains that he had merit because of his faith, that he trusted in God, and through the merit of that faith this miracle was performed for him.

(כה) למה צוה להשליך את האנשים לגוב האריות והלא לא באו בעלילות שקר והוא נתחייב מיתה כדין, ואם ניצול בנס בעבור זה לא נתחייבו המה מיתה, והלא נבוכדנצר לא צוה להשליך לכבשן את האנשים שהלשינו על חנניה מישאל ועזריה הגם שגם המה נצולו בנס?:

Questions: (25) Why did he command to cast those men into the lions’ den? They did not bring false accusations—Daniel was, according to the law, liable to death. And if he was saved by a miracle, that does not make them liable to death. And did not Nebuchadnezzar refrain from casting into the furnace those who informed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, even though they too were saved by a miracle?

“And the king commanded, and they cast the accusers into the den, and the lions crushed their bones,” — and from this it is evident that the lions were extremely hungry, and nevertheless they did not touch Daniel; this magnifies the miracle.

“From before me,” — he issued a decree that they should fear the God of Daniel, for all those other gods are idols without life, being merely natural forces without vitality or intellect; but He is living and enduring. The natural forces to which the idolaters ascribed divinity—such as fire, which the Persians worshipped in those days—are overcome by other opposing forces (for water extinguishes fire), and they do not endure forever, since every natural force has an end. But His kingdom shall not be destroyed by any opposing force, and His dominion is everlasting, without end.

“He delivers and rescues,” and also performs signs and wonders and miracles beyond the natural order, as is evident from the miracle by which He saved Daniel, which was entirely supernatural.

“And this Daniel prospered…” etc., “and in the reign of Cyrus,” — and above (1:21) it says, “and Daniel remained until the first year of Cyrus.” The Abarbanel explained, based on what is written in Josippon, that after he was cast into the lions’ den, Daniel requested permission to withdraw from royal service and go to Shushan, and he was granted permission; and Zerubbabel entered the king’s palace in his place. Meanwhile, Darius died and Cyrus reigned in his stead, and Daniel remained there until the return of the exiles to Jerusalem. He also wrote that the letter which Darius sent to all the nations was a prelude to his intention and to the vow that he and Cyrus made to send the captives free to build the house of Hashem; therefore he made known the greatness of God’s deeds and His wonders, so that they would fear Hashem, the God of Israel.