2021/5782
Rashi to Daniel 9:24 (following Chazal – Nazir 32b) explains Daniel 9:23-27 to refer to Churban Bayit Sheini. The term “Shavu’im Shiv’im” that appears in Pasuk 24 is understood by Rashi/Chazal as referring to the 70 years from Churban Bayit Rishon to Binyan Bayit Sheini plus the 420 years Chazal say Bayit Sheini stood.
This leads to an astounding point – Bayit Sheini was destined/doomed to fail! Moreover, the Gemara (Nazir 32b) seems to say that the Jews of Bayit Sheini were aware of this interpretation of Daniel 9:23-27!
Malbim (to Pasuk 24 d”h Shavu’im Shiva) insists that the decree was reversible through Teshuva. Year 420 post Binyan Bayit Sheini is “performance review” time when Hashem will assess whether we deserve the Churban. Thus, destiny and poor choices (Sinat Chinam – Yoma 9b) caused Churban Bayit Sheini – reminiscent of Mena, Mena, Tekal Ufarsin.
Rav Yaakov Medan’s alternative explanation of Daniel 9:23-27.
We might suggest another way of calculating the redemption in accordance with the "shavu'im shiv'im" in our chapter. If we count the "shavu'im" as days rather than years, the angel is confirming for Daniel that the return to Tzion and the beginning of the rebuilding of the Temple will take place during the coming year (490 days are approximately one year and 4 months). The total count arrived at if we add "shavu'im shiv'im," "shavu'im shiv'a," and "shavu'im shishim u-shenayim" is almost three years, and this may allude to the three-year reign of Cyrus, who is referred to by Yishayahu (end of chapter 44 and beginning of 45) as "mashiach." The death of Cyrus, the "mashiach," heralded a difficult period for Am Yisrael, as alluded to by Daniel in the final verses of his vision.
An addition to Rav Medan
A careful examination of Nazir 32b leads us to conclude that the Gemara does not mean that Churban Bayit Sheini is inevitable. Rather, it is saying that it is possible. The Pasuk presented in regards to the destruction of Bayit Rishon is Yirmiyahu’s (Yirmiyahu Perek 7) rejection of the mindset that “Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem, Heichal Hashem Heimah!” - the idea that Hashem will never let His house of dwelling be destroyed. Yirmiyahu HaNavi endeavors to dispel this notion, teaching that the destruction of the Mishkan at Shilo teaches that our sins can lead to the destruction of Hashem’s home! It is not “too big to fail”.
Thus, the interpretation of “Shavu’im Shiv’im” as predicting the destruction of Bayit Sheini after 420 years, cited by the Gemara in regard to Churban Bayit Sheini, is not a fait accompli. Instead, it sets forth the possibility but not inevitability that the Beit HaMikdash will be destroyed.
In other words, The Gemara’s interpretation of “Shavu’im Shiv’im” is not the only possible interpretation of the term. Had we acted better, the second Beit HaMikdash would not have been destroyed. This would not be only a result of Teshuvah overcoming the negative decree. It could also be that the term “Shavu’im Shiv’im” would then be interpreted in a manner not predicting Churban, such as Rav Medan’s approach.
These alternate interpretations are similar to Rashi’s explanation of Yonah’s (Yonah 3:4) warning to Nineveh that in forty days it will be “Nehepachet”. Rashi notes that the word “Nehepachet ” or overturned may be understood in one of two ways. Either it means destroyed as the word is used in the context of the destruction of Sedom. Alternatively, it could mean that it will turn over, as in the phrase “turn over a new leaf” or a complete reversal of behavior as in the phrase "VeNahafoch Hu" from Megillat Esther (9:1).
In other words, by Yonah using the word “Nehepachet”, he communicates to Nineveh that they have the opportunity to create their own destiny. Their destiny is either to be destroyed or change. It is up to Nineveh as to which outcome they wish to occur.
In Sefer Daniel, the flexibility of the term “Shavu’im Shiv’im” serves the same role as Yirmiyahu’s warning. It warns us that Churban Bayit Sheini is a possible result of our poor behavior.
This is very similar to the interpretation of Vayikra 16:3; (see Rashi thereupon citing from Vayikra Rabbah 21:9) “BeZot Yavo Aharon El HaKodesh”, “With this Aharon will come to the Kodesh,” that Gematria equivalent of the word “BeZot” is 410, predicting that the first Beit HaMikdash will exist for 410 years. This interpretation does not imply that Churban Bayit Rishon was inevitable. Rather, it teaches that this is a possible interpretation of this phrase and therefore the possibility of Churban exists.
Bayit Sheini Same as Bayit Rishon
The following two sources also suggest that Bayit Sheini enjoyed the same potential as Bayit Rishon. Brachot 4a teaches that our second entry to Eretz Yisrael (during the time of Ezra) was supposed to be as glorious and grand as the first entry (during the time of Yehoshua). However, our lowered spiritual state during Ezra’s time did not allow for this positive promise to be realized. This Gemara seems to indicate that Bayit Sheini held the same promise as Bayit Rishon.
At the other end, Yoma 9b records that Bayit Rishon was destroyed due to violation of the three cardinal sins of murder, idolatry, and illicit relations and that the second Beit HaMikdash was destroyed due to Sinat Chinam. This Gemara indicates that both Bayit Rishon and Bayit Sheini held equal promise to last forever. Both were destroyed due to spiritual inadequacies but not due to a destined fall. Had Bayit Sheini been destined to fall, we would have expected the Gemara to say that the second Beit HaMikdash fell due to its predetermined termination date and spiritual flaws.
A New Understanding of the Vision of Arba Malchiyot
The approach we are articulating may be applied to Rav Chaim ibn Galippe’s interpretation of the Arba Malchiyot. Ibn Galippe understands all of Sefer Daniel’s visions as not extending beyond the time of Bayit Sheini. The Malchut Hashem that will last forever is the era that the Chashmona’im were supposed to usher in. However, the spiritual fall of the Hasmonean dynasty did not allow this promise to be fulfilled. Daniel’s vision, like all Nevu’ah as stated by Tosafot (Yevamot 50a d”h Teida), applies only if we are worthy of its realization. Both Rav Yaakov Medan and Da’at Mikra champion this approach as Peshuto Shel Mikra [1].
It is possible that Ibn Galippe’s approach was the original intent of the Nevu’ah. However, since we proved to be unworthy, the promise was deferred to later generations. The intended message for Sefer Daniel’s original audience was the promise of the Hasmonean kings. However, due to their failures the vision was deferred to later generations.
This deferral reminds us of Malbim’s approach to the Messianic visions set forth by Yishayahu HaNavi. Malbim explains that the visions set forth by Yishayahu in Perakim 2, 7, and 11 refer to Chizkiyahu HaMelech. However, due to his failure to thank Hashem for the great miracle ending the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (see Sanhedrin 94a), Yishayahu’s vision is deferred to a more worthy candidate in a later generation.
Chazal, subsequent to the downfall of the Hasmoneans, understand that the fourth of the Arba Malchiyot is Rome and that Mashi’ach will arrive when the Roman Empire ends. When that potential redemption failed to materialize, Rashi explains the fourth Malchut to apply to Christian dominance.
In other words, the Mefarshim interpret the Arba Malchiyot in a manner appropriate to their times. In more modern times when the dominance of the Church has waned we can interpret the Arba Malchiyot in a manner appropriate to our times. Some now are inclined to embrace Ibn Ezra’s view that Yishma’el represents the fourth kingdom. However one understands the Nevu’ot and visions, their promise will be realized only when we deserve its realization. The promise at each stage of interpretation could have been realized but we did not rise to the occasion and seize each of these opportunities.
In light of our understanding of “Shavu’im Shiv’im”, there is another approach to Ibn Gallipe’s interpretation. It may be seen as setting forth an option for the original audience. If we prove worthy during the Hasmonean era, the great promises will be realized. However, since other interpretations abound, the promise of the Hasmonean era will be deferred to a later date in line with the other interpretations if we are deemed by Hashem as unworthy of the ultimate redemption.
Conclusion
Daniel’s Nevu’ot do not at all presume the destined destruction of the second Beit HaMikdash. The second Beit HaMikdash was supposed to serve as “Reishit Tzemichat Ge’ulateinu”, the beginning of the dawn of our deliverance to be realized during the time of the Chashmona’im. Only due to our failures did the second Beit HaMikdash fall. Bayit Sheini was not destined to fail. We failed.
Nevu’ah does not allow us to abdicate responsibility. Just the opposite, Nevu’ah raises our awareness of our potential and we must make every effort to elevate ourselves individually and communally, in order to merit the realization of our lofty promise.
[1] The fact that Perek 11 of Sefer Daniel devotes so much space to the Diadochi (the four kingdoms into which Alexander the Great empire was divided of which the Syrian-Greeks severely oppressed us), lends great credence to Ibn Galippe’s view that Sefer Daniel focuses on the struggles and promises of the Chasmona’im.