Why did Daniel risk his life to recite his Tefillah? He Nearly lost His Life in the Lion’s Den! by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

2021/5782

The Abarbanel poses the obviously large question – why did Daniel risk his life for Tefillah? After all, failing to recite one’s prayers is not one of the three cardinal sins for which we say Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor. This is especially true according to the Ramban who rules that Tefillah is a rabbinic obligation.

Approach #1 - Abarbanel

Abarbanel argues that Daniel did not think he would be caught. However, Pesukim 11 and 12, which state that Daniel prayed by his attic window, hardly support Abarbanel (as noted by the Malbim to Pesukim 11-12). Consider that when religious Jews in the Soviet Union observed Mitzvot such as learning Torah, Brit Milah, Mikvaot and Matza baking, they did so in hiding.

Approach #2 – Malbim

The Malbim to Pesukim 11-12 argues that Daniel did not think he was endangering himself by davening his standard thrice daily Tefillot. Daniel thought the decree applied only to special requests. The TABC Talmidim, including Shimshy Gordon, note that this would be quite a flimsy defense for Daniel. It would seem quite reckless and irresponsible for Daniel to take such a severe risk.

Approach #3 – The Sefer Chassidim

The Sefer Chassidim is the lone Rishon who argues that avoiding Tefillah is Yeihareig V’Al Ya’avor.  The Mishnah (Berachot 5:1) and Gemara (Berachot 32b and 33a) do not support this outlier view, as they teach that in case of inescapable danger one should interrupt even his Amida.

Moreover, Daniel could have maintained his prayer routine without risking his life by simply davening in his basement or closet.  Why did he needlessly (seemingly) expose himself to terrible danger by praying in front of his attic window?

Approach #4 – The Ramban and Ran: Sha’at HaShemad

Ramban and Ran to Shabbat 49a claim that Daniel continued to Daven because it was a Sha’at HaShemad (a time of religious persecution). However, they do not explain why they think it was a Sha’at HaShemad. This task is left to us to develop.

Rambam Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:3 (who explicitly alludes to Sefer Daniel!) explains Sha’at HaShemad as a situation where an evil ruler targets Jewish practice in an effort to eliminate its observance.

Daryavesh HaMadi’s decree of thirty days of no prayer does not seem to meet the Rambam’s criteria for Sha’at HaShemad. The Malbim on Pesukim 7-8 and 11-12 argues that it is not.  The decree targets Daniel, not Torah observance.  Moreover, as noted by TABC Talmid Chanan Schrieber, the non-prayer decree expires in thirty days.

Rav Medan’s Explanation of the Ramban and Ran

 Rav Yaakov Medan thinks it is a Sha’at HaShemad based on Yirmiyahu 29:10-14 and Daniel Perek 9. Rav Medan asserts:

We make an assumption that has no explicit basis in the text. This assumption is the connection between chapter 9 and the narrative in chapter 6.

Daniel has high hopes for the seventieth year, inspiring his great prayer for the redemption, a prayer which had been anticipated and awaited by Yirmiyahu. In a development that is clearly the work of Satan, it is specifically in this year, the seventieth year, that the ministers of Darius the Mede invent the decree prohibiting prayer to any god or power except for Darius himself. Daniel is well aware that this decree may cause the time for redemption to be missed. He does not view it as an incidental development. He views it in the context of Yirmiyahu's words on prayer, and understands that the decree is a test that God is imposing on His people, on the eve of the redemption, to see whether they love God with all their heart and all their soul and whether they will fulfill Yirmiyahu's prophecy simply and wholeheartedly:

 And you shall call upon Me, and go, and pray to Me, and I will hear you. And you shall seek Me, and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. (Yirmiyahu 29:12-13)

 Daniel views the situation as a test – but not in the sense that he is certain that God will save him. He intends to give up his life if he is caught in prayer, but is not prepared to miss the hour of favor that is critical for the redemption.

Rav Medan’s approach is certainly highly creative and “out-of-the-box.” However, it does not withstand scrutiny. If his approach is accurate, one would expect Sefer Daniel to clearly connect Perek 6 and Perek 9. Moreover, Daniel could have recited the identical Tefillah if he merely closed the shade or prayed in a closet. He could have prayed for redemption in hiding and it would have been just as effective (unless one argues that Daniel was trying to inspire the rest of Am Yisrael to follow suit and pray).

A New Explanation of the Ramban and Ran

Let us try to develop an alternative explanation of Ramban and Ran that it is a Sha’at HaShemad. The Ramban and the Ran compare Daniel’s actions to Elisha Ba’al Kenafayim’s heroic defiance of the evil Roman government’s decree forbidding the wearing of Tefillin on the pain of death.  Elisha, in turn, wore his Tefillin in public. When chased by a Roman officer, he hid the Tefillin in his hands claiming they were dove’s wings. When he opened his hands, they miraculously turned out to be dove’s wings! The Gemara concludes that just as wings protect a dove, so too Mitzvot protect the Jewish people.

The comparison seems off-hand to be inapt, as the Roman decree targeted Torah observance while Darius the Mede’s decree was designed to attack Daniel. TABC Talmid Shimmy Greengart describes the Daniel situation as a de facto Sha’at HaShemad. TABC Talmid Shimshy Gordon calls it a quasi-Sha’at HaShemad. Add to that the fact that the anti-prayer decree was in effect for thirty days. Torah observance could have continued to thrive despite conducting Tefillah in hiding for thirty days.

To explain Daniel’s choice, we note that it is the first year of a new empire in charge of the Jews. The Babylonian empire’s hatred of Jews is quite apparent from Daniel repeatedly becoming sidelined by their leaders despite his unmatched prodigious talent. By contrast, the one Median-Persian empire seems quite philo-Semitic (at least until Haman arrives on the scene). Daniel is very quickly promoted by Darius the Mede to serve as his leading advisor. Darius the Mede seems to genuinely harbor great affection and admiration for Daniel. Later, Koresh permits the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash.  Darius the Persian even finances the completion of the Beit HaMikdash. Much later, kosher food was offered as an option for Jews who attended Achashveirosh’s raucous party (Megillah 12a with Maharsha s.v. La’asot Kirtzon Ish Va’Ish).  The three advisors who plotted against Daniel do not, unlike Haman, seem to be motivated by anti-Semitism. Instead, jealousy of Daniel’s promotion seems to fuel their evil actions.

In such an environment Daniel feared Jewish assimilation.  While violent anti-Semitism threatens the Jewish body, philo-Semitism threatens the Jewish soul.  Just witness the millions of Jews lost to assimilation and intermarriage in the heretofore philo-Semitic United States.

Daniel feels an urgent need to publicly defy the decree in a stunning demonstration and modeling of remaining steadfastly and unreservedly loyal to the Halacha even under the new regime. Daniel dramatically blazed a trail of no compromise to Halacha under Media-Persia.

The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 18a in the pages of the Rif) asserts that “a prominently pious individual who fears Hashem and recognizes the generation’s spiritual decline may sacrifice his life even if not technically required to do so by Halacha, in order to inspire the nation to fear Hashem”.

While Daniel’s public prayer was dangerous, his refraining from such Davening would have been far more dangerous to the spiritual survival of our people. The same may be said for Mordechai's refusal to bow to Haman and Elisha Ba’al Kenafayim’s refusal to capitulate to the Roman decree to not wear Tefillin.

Each of these great men recognized that the Mitzvot protect the Jewish people. Only Mitzva observance ensures Jewish continuity. The PEW report on American Jewry of 2020 makes this abundantly clear. The picture that emerges from this study is that Jews under 30 are, broadly speaking, either Orthodox or unaffiliated. The Jewish people are an eternal people who outlast all other nations. However, only Jews who are plugged into eternity by fully observing the Eternal Torah’s Mitzvot and are fully aligned with the Torah’s Eternal values, survive in the long run.

Daniel’s refusal to refrain from Tefillah in public view in his old age fits with his refusal to eat non-kosher as a boy in Nevuchadneztar’s palace at the beginning of the Babylonian exile.  It also fits with Chanania, Misha’el, and Azariah’s refusal to bow to Nevuchadneztar’s image, especially according to Rabbeinu Tam that the statue was not, technically speaking, Avoda Zara. Daniel continues to pave a path for Jewish survival at the dawn of the new era of Persian-Median rule.

Conclusion

Far from reckless, the heroism of Daniel, Rabi Akiva, and my grandfather for observing Shabbat in New York in the early twentieth century, model what it takes for Jewish survival.  Dedication, determination, and willingness to sacrifice are the hallmarks of Torah Jews whose survival is everlasting.


Why Build Bayit Sheini? by Rabbi Chaim Jachter

Why is Much of Sefer Daniel Written in Aramaic? by Rabbi Chaim Jachter