Rashi to Daniel Perek 9 Pasuk 24 (following Chazal – Nazir 32b) explains that Daniel Perek 9 Pesukim 23-27 refers 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 s.v. 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 Menei, Menei, Tekal Ufarsin120Our performance review time of course is Rosh Hashana, Aseret Yemei Teshuva, Yom Kippur (and Hoshana Rabba according to Kabbalah/Chassidut)..
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 years121The word year is not mentioned in this Pasuk. Thus, there is considerable flexibility in regard to the interpretation of the term “Shavu’im Shivim”., 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.
Adding 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 “earthly home” 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! The Beit HaMikdash is not “too big to fail”.
Thus, the interpretation of “Shavu’im Shivim” 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. 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 Shivim” 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 have been only a result of Teshuva overcoming the negative decree. It could also be that the term “Shavu’im Shivim” 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 (Yonah’s 3:4) warning Nineveh that in forty days it will be “Nehepachet”. Rashi notes that the word “Nehepachet” (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, or 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 "VeNahaphoch 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 Shivim” serves the same role as Yirmiyahu’s warning. It warns us that Churban Bayit Sheini is a possible result of our poor behavior122Therefore, Rav Yosef in Nazir 32b challenges the Hatarat Nedarim of visitors from Chutz LaAretz who took an oath of Nezirut at the time of the Churban. He argues that the visitors should have anticipated the Churban since Daniel makes it clear that it is likely to occur at that time. Hatarat Nedarim is effective only for something regarding which one would not likely be mindful of at the time he made the Neder..
This is very similar to the interpretation of (Vayikra 16:3; see Rashi thereupon citing from Vayikra Rabbah 21:9) “B’Zot Yavo Aharon El HaKodesh”, that the Gematria equivalent of the word B’Zot 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 a possible interpretation of this phrase which opens the possibility of Churban.
Bayit Sheini Same as Bayit Rishon
The following two sources suggest that Bayit Sheini enjoyed the same potential as Bayit Rishon. Berachot 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 flaws123The Gemara, though, cites a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabi Yochanan as to whether Bayit Sheini could have realized its promise if the Jewish people returned to Eretz Yisrael en masse to rebuild the second Beit HaMikdash..
Perspectives on the Arba Malchuyot
The approach we are articulating may be applied to Rav Chaim ibn Galippe’s interpretation of the Arba Malchuyot. 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 Chashmonaim 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 s.v. Teida), applies only if we are worthy of its realization. Both Rav Yaakov Medan and Da’at Mikra champion this approach as Peshuto Shel Mikra124The fact that Perek 11 of Sefer Daniel devotes so much space to the Diadochi (the four kingdoms into which Alexander the Great’s 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 Chashmona’im..
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 Malchuyot 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 Malchuyot in a manner appropriate to their times. In more modern times, when the dominance of the Church has waned, we can interpret the Arba Malchuyot 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 Shivim”, 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 Messianic 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 fail125We respectfully disagree with the approach set forth by Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky (Emet L’Yaakov to Breishit 49:10) that Bayit Sheini was never intended to be permanent. Rav Yaakov believes that Bayit Sheini was just a temporary light intended only to help sustain our faith through the long post Bayit Sheini Galut. His family members note (ad. loc.) that Rav Yaakov often repeated this assertion. One gets the impression that Rav Yaakov is making a thinly veiled reference to Medinat Yisrael. If this is correct, then Rav Kamenetzky holds the opposite extreme of those like Rav Yitzchak Herzog who believe that we are guaranteed not to have a “Churban Bayit Shelishi” (i.e. that Medinat Yisrael will inexorably lead to the building of the third Beit HaMikdash which will never be destroyed). We respectfully reject both extremes. We shape and mold our destiny. If we act responsibly, both in a spiritual and practical.sense, we will succeed. If not, we, God forbid, will fall. As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein pointed out to me, the second Parashah of Keriat Shema makes this abundantly clear. . 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.
Postscript Number One - Original Audience and All Generations
Rashi (to Chullin 137a) states that every Nevu’ah (save for the unique Nevu’ah of Moshe Rabbeinu) is intended “for the needs of the time, the generation and situation.” On the other hand, the Gemara (Megilla 14a) famously says that only the Nevu’ot that are needed for each generation are recorded. Both statements are true.
The Midrash Tehillim (Mizmor 18) teaches that David’s Tehillim were written for himself, the community of his time and for all generations. The same applies to each Nevu’ah. The same may be said about Daniel’s visions. They were tailored for more immediate concerns as well as the concerns of all generations. It is in this light that we must understand all Nevu’ot and visions including those of Daniel.
Postscript Number Two
Our discussion sheds light on the Mishna (Yoma 18b) which records the Tanach Sefarim read to the not-so-scholarly Kohanim Gedolim throughout the night of Yom Kippur (when they are forbidden to sleep). The Tanna Kamma records that we read Iyov, Ezra, and Divrei HaYamim to the Kohein Gadol. Rashi (ad. loc. s.v. B’Iyov) explains that these Sefarim are riveting, will capture the Kohen Gadol’s attention, and will keep him from falling asleep. The Mishna concludes citing Zecharia ben Kevutal who reports that many times he read Sefer Daniel before the Kohen Gadol.
Rav Pinchas Kehati, in his elucidation of this Mishna, cites Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Isser Yehuda Unterman’s explanation that sometimes the Kohen Gadol was so ignorant he did not even know Hebrew and had to be told Daniel which contains seven chapters in Aramaic. A problem, however, with this explanation is that a considerable portion of Ezra is written in Aramaic. Moreover, Sefer Daniel is quite riveting. It is very difficult to understand why the Tanna Kama does not include Sefer Daniel among the Sefarim read to the ignorant Kohen Gadol.
We offer an explanation in light of our discussion. The Tanna Kama believes that we should not read Sefer Daniel to the Kohen Gadol since Jewish survival in Galut is its dominant theme. Moreover, it even includes a predicted time of the demise of Bayit Sheini! Sefer Daniel, accordingly, hardly serves to fortify the heart of the Kohen Gadol through the wee hours of Yom Kippur night126This may also explain why Megillat Esther is not read to the Kohen Gadol despite its very appealing nature and despite the Kabbalistic/Chassidic connection between Yom Kippurim and Purim.!
The dominant themes of Sefer Ezra and Sefer Divrei HaYamim, on the other hand, are the rebuilding of the second Beit HaMikdash. These Sefarim are brimming with optimism encouraging the Jews of the challenging time of Bayit Sheini. Even Sefer Iyov, in its entirety, presents the uplifting message of Iyov, at the Sefer’s conclusion, transforming a horrific situation into significant gains for himself and his family.
Zecharia ben Kevutal, on the other hand, testifies that Sefer Daniel is the perfect Sefer for the less than scholarly Kohen Gadol to hear on the night of Yom Kippur. Daniel, especially in its warning of a possible date of Churban Bayit Sheini, serves a potent and sobering reminder to the Kohen Gadol of the profound responsibility resting on his shoulders on this holiest day of the year.
Zecharia ben Kevutal’s appearance in the Mishna suggests that he lived toward the end of Bayit Sheini. Specifically at the time period, as the year of Churban Bayit Sheini was rapidly approaching, the warning of Sefer Daniel loomed large and needed to be brought front and center to the Kohen Gadol. Such is the power of the dramatic testimony of Zecharia ben Kevutal.