Questions Posed to TABC Talmidim
1. Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 28 (beginning with the words Val Ya’aleh Al Libcha) argues that Nevuchanetzar did not literally turn into a wild animal. Rav Saadia Gaon and Malbim agree. Rather, he acted as a wild animal. Does this seem like a “stretch” or is it convincing? What was your impression from learning this Perek? Please learn the Ibn Ezra, review Pesukim 22, 29, and 30 and share your thoughts.
2. The Ibn Ezra (from the beginning of his thoughts on Pasuk 28) argues with “the Ga’on” (when the Ibn Ezra refers to the Gaon, he refers to Rav Sa’adia Gaon) as to the meaning of the “seven time periods” in which Nevuchadnetzar is transformed into a “wild animal”. Which one of these explanations seems more convincing? Consider the possibility that neither side is more convincing than the other. Can you bring a Ra’ayah to either approach?
3. Many records of Nevuchadneztar’s reign have been excavated, such as the Nebuchanezzar Cylinder on display at the British Museum in London: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/W_1885-0430-1
Fired clay cylinder with an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562BC); this describes the king's work on various projects including restoration of the temples and ziggurats of Babylon and Borsippa; it states that his father's palace had been damaged by flooding; he repaired and extended it; also a new fortress on the north of the city.
Also, in New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/321676
I built a strong wall that cannot be shaken with bitumen and baked bricks... I laid its foundation on the breast of the netherworld, and I built its top as high as a mountain.
However, no records (outside of the Tanach) have been discovered that describe a time when Nevuchadnetzar became insane and temporarily vacated his emperorship. How might you reconcile the absence of such material evidence of this event with what our holy Tanach records?
Consider the following insight from Professor Joshua Berman of Bar Ilan University, an Orthodox Bible Professor. He writes in his book “Ani Maamin” (an Orthodox response to Biblical Criticism and other academic challenges to the divine origin of the Tanach) that royal inscriptions and records are “akin to modern-day resumes and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind”.
Da’at Mikra notes the following: an Aramaic inscription found at Qumran, concerning the prayer of Nevuna'id, who suffered a plague of boils for seven years and lived in Timna, in the desert. He was healed by a Jewish sage who recognized the Supreme God. The individual described in the legend is called Nevuna'id, and scholars have debated the meaning of his connection to Nevuchadnetzar. However, it may be that Nevuna'id is a general title – like Pharaoh or Artaxerxes – such that Nevuchadnetzar was the personal name of a certain Nevuna'id. This has been proposed by a minority of scholars.
Do you find this compelling or is it a stretch?
TABC Talmidim Comments:
Ezra Kopstick - The reason why there is no mention of Nevuchadnetzar's becoming insane and acting like an animal is because it did not last very long. We know that Hashem increased our suffering in Mitzrayim to shorten the time we had to stay there. So too here Hashem made Nevuchadnetzar's suffering great. Although it felt like a long time to Nevuchadnetzar, it was only in reality a short amount of time. This also helps us understand why he was able to return as king and someone didn't take over his kingdom. It was because he was gone only for a short period of time.
Elan Agus - I think that the Peshat explanation is like the Ibn Ezra. Perek 4 Pasuk 29 says he will eat grass like cattle, not that he was actually an animal, but that he was like an animal.
Menachem Kravetz - If Nebuchadnetzar was actually turned into an animal for seven seasons, it seems unlikely he would have the ability to reason and look up to heaven and change his beliefs. In my opinion, all he would be thinking is "Boy, am I hungry"- the way animals think. Additionally, when Nevachadnetzar returned, it would be a much easier transition if he stayed human the whole time. Furthermore, if he was transformed into an animal, he would probably be motivated to quickly recognize Hashem during this transition. Staying human makes him ponder his thoughts for a bit and reach a much better and more convincing conclusion submitting to Hashem’s authority. Arriving at a conclusion after long thoughts and pondering can lead one to a much more convincing conclusion than one that is short and not well thought out. This allows Nebuchadnezzer to appreciate Hashem more and be more willing to stay with Him when exposed to potentially contrary evidence. Lastly, let's remember that Hashem prefers to operate B’Derech Hateva. Therefore, I believe that he was forced to live in the wild LIKE a wild beast for seven seasons, not AS a wild beast.
Eitan Mermelstein - I find the Ibn Ezra, Malbim, and Rav Saadia to be very convincing. This is especially so since the Pesukim write that his living place will be amongst the beasts, and he will eat grass like cattle. The movie Tarzan came to mind when reading these Pesukim and may be somewhat in line with what these Mefarshim are saying. I believe Ibn Ezra to be more convincing than the Gaon especially considering the vast transformation that Ibn Ezra describes Nevuchadnetzar undergoing. Moreover, if a year of doing Tzedaka was not enough time for Nevuchadnetzar to change and do Teshuva, it seems improbable that a few months in the forest would do the trick. However, I find Ibn Ezra's proof somewhat troubling because the Pasuk he quotes refers to the term “Idan” which is used in Perek 7 as the amount of time until Moshiach will come, Idan Idanin U'Plag Idan. Given that it has been almost 2,500 years since Sefer Daniel was written and unfortunately Mashiach has not come, the Idan in that Pasuk must be referring to around 1,000 years at least. Therefore, Ibn Ezra's proof from that Pasuk does not appear compelling.
It would be extremely embarrassing for such a large empire to have its emperor go insane, vacate the palace, and then return to power some years later. Therefore, a cover-up (as occurred in the White House after Wilson’s stroke) is not so unlikely.
The passage at Qumran seems unlikely as those passages come primarily from Bayit Sheini and the Dead Sea Scroll tribes. Moreover, the earliest Dead Sea Scroll that has been found in Qumran comes from the middle of the 3rd Century BCE, centuries later than the time period in which Nevuchadnetzar would have been king. However, Professor Berman's approach is quite sound and logical and may be the correct approach.
Aaron Teitlbaum - Since there is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did anything insane to destroy his empire it seems like he might have actually turned into a wild animal instead of just acting like one.
RJ - Chazal do tell of very bizarre behavior in which Nevuchadnetzar engaged (such as eating a live rabbit and far worse!). It could refer to this time period.
Avi Tepler - It seems like the Ibn Ezra, Malbim and Rav Saadya Gaon are right because the Pesukim indicate that Nevudchadnetzar will only be “like” with the usage of the Hebrew/Aramaic letter כ.
I agree with Professor Joshua Berman’s assertion, but I also think that the matter of Nevuchadnetzar’s being turned into a beast would not have been made public in Bavel and surely not transcribed so it can be remembered for years to come. This was a severe source of embarrassment for Nevudchadnetzar.
Yaakov Saks - I believe that Nevuchadnetzar wanted to hide this information and destroyed all the records. We know that emperors can get rid of all the records and make it seem like nothing ever happens, because it occurred in Shemot. We saw that after Yosef died "vayakom melech chadash asher lo yada et Yosef." There is no way that the king didn't know of Yosef; rather, the records must have been destroyed. If the king destroys the records the citizens are forced to forget it ever happened. That, I believe, is why we don't have external evidence of Nevuchadnetzar's animal episode.
Shimon Greengart - I don't think it matters how long this took. While both the dream and Daniel's interpretation mention seven time periods, the actual event is described only as occurring after some time. I suggest that seven is used here because of its significance as describing completion, including Hashem. There is a reason for the significance of the seventh day and the seventh year (and, during the Omer, seven weeks). The importance of seven here is that Hashem is completely transforming Nevuchadnetzar's mind into a beastly one. Nevuchadnetzar did not respect Hashem's rulership over the world, represented by Shabbat, so Nevuchadnetzar becomes a beast for a Shavua of time. However, it does not actually have to do with how much time passed.
Even if Babylonian inscriptions were perfect historical records, they still wouldn't include Nevuchadnetzar's illness, because their purpose was to commemorate building projects. Building a city has nothing to do with insanity. Although, the cylinders describing Nevuchadnetzar's accomplishments bring more to light about what it was that he was describing in Pasuk 27. He was literally boasting about having built up Babylon, by physically building more walls and temples. As such, Hashem did not like this self-worship and made him insane.
Despite so many other details (like the timeframe) matching, I can't see these stories being the same. That doesn't mean that Nevuchadnetzar never went crazy, only that Nevuna’id and his boils is a totally different story, perhaps one that took place during the Second Temple Period.
Elan Goldstein - At first glance of the pesukim I did not think that he literally turned into a wild animal, rather that he lost his sanity. It also makes sense that this story was never recovered because the citizens likely did not want to bad mouth their king. It seems like he was a strict ruler but mostly liked throughout his empire.
RJ – Nevuchadnetzar was pretty vicious and brutal but the Babylonian people may have appreciated the economic benefits and improvement of standards of living he brought by transforming Babylon into the world’s supreme superpower.
Rami Gertler - The reason why it doesn't record Nevuchadnetzar going crazy or even turning into a wild animal is very simple. As Professor Joshua Berman said, who would ever want to record something that the leader of an empire did that was terrible? Who would ever want to remind anyone of something bad that happened to their emperor? Of course it wouldn't record his failures. Hashem happens to be perfect, so we don't have any trouble with that; but Nevuchadnetzar, who was presumably considered the most powerful being in the world at the time, definitely had flaws, but no one would ever dare write that down. But then we come to a problem. Why then, would we ever write down the wrong-doings of our fellow Jews? Doesn't that seem disrespectful? While the answer may not seem obvious, we have to dig a bit deeper. The reason Jews write down these things is to learn from their mistakes. With the Holocaust, for example, we don't know what they did, but we know that it must be a message from Hashem that He wants us to know. So too with regard to every record in Tanach, it is all recorded because Hashem knows that we can learn a lesson from it. Hashem doesn't go out of His way to embarrass someone for doing the wrong thing. He uses them as an example for future generations to improve. This idea goes back to what we learned yesterday. Hashem's goal is not to bully us. His goal is for us to be the greatest that we possibly can be. And the way in which we achieve that is through lessons. Believers in predestination would never record something bad that happened to someone, because they believe that that was decided before that person was born. Jews, however, who believe that they can change and become better people, must learn about what not to do so they can relate more and improve. People are more prone to listen to something if it is a personal story that actually happened. Even though we listen to both Chukim and Mishpatim, there are many for which we don't know the reason. But with stories, we see these mistakes played out as well as their consequences. Therefore, we record the mistakes to learn what not to do in order to become the best Jews that we possibly can be.
David Rabbani - The pesukim seem to corroborate Ibn Ezra's (and many others') approach. Nevuchadnetzar is compared to a wild animal in many ways (like hair, nails) but is never called an animal. This was likely a seemingly natural process because Hashem doesn't like to engage in miracles where it is not necessary to have the desired effect. Nevuchadnetzar knows it is a punishment from Hashem, either way.
Ibn Ezra's opinion seems to make more sense, though I think that possibly the 7 "seasons" refers to literal seasons or changes in time, and not a specific amount of time (like 7 days, weeks, months, or years).
I agree that lack of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, particularly from such an ancient kingdom, and because the evidence would be deprecatory to the supreme leader and king of the huge Babylonian Empire. The Babylonians likely did not record this event simply because it looked bad.
Benzion Rotblat - The pesukim at surface level sound like the Ibn Ezra, as the pasuk doesn't sound like an outright neis occurred.
If he was insane, he wouldn't have a) publicized it (it's not like there were televisions in the palace!) (kind of like FDR's wheelchair) and b) recorded it as it would make the king seem less god-like to the people.
Daniel Gopin - The Ibn Ezra’s reasoning of Nebuchadnezzar not actually turning into an animal is very convincing. We see in pesukim 22, 29, and 30 that it says that he will be fed grass LIKE animals. This would point towards the direction that he didn’t actually turn into an animal. Rather, he was sort of treated like an animal. Also, if I’m not mistaken, we do not ever see in Tanach that a person is literally turned into an animal.
Ezra Baron - I think that Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of Nevuchadnetzar merely acting like a wild animal is not a stretch, but convincing. Also, I find the approach of Professor Joshua Berman, that historical records often fail to mention setbacks, to be both interesting and reasonable. One famous saying is that “history is written by the winners,” and I think that a lack of evidence that Nevuchadnetzar ever vacated his emperorship can be attributed to this idea, as he did not want his failures or mistakes to become etched into history. Furthermore, as you have taught us before, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and this can certainly be an example of this concept.
Levi Langer - I strongly agree with Ibn Ezra and Malbim and Rav Saadya Gaon that he did not become an animal physically. This is especially true since the Pesukim state that his hair and nails became like those of animals (birds), implying that the rest of his body stayed human.
The advantage to Ibn Ezra is that his hair and nails grow longer in years rather than months. According to the American Academy of Dermatology, head hair grows at a rate of 3.5 inches in 7 months, and 42 inches in 7 years. By that point, continued hair growth would be supernatural, since human head hair grows in a maximum range of 12-42 inches, supporting Ibn Ezra. However, eagles don't grow feathers this long (10-22 in). Maybe we should be less literal, then. On the other hand, it's possible that by the fashion standards of 570 BCE Babylon, a hair length of 3.5 inches longer than normal (and seven months of untrimmed nails) was unheard of (at the very least, for a man), disgusting, unhuman, etc. This is particularly true of a king, who grooms to the highest standards, especially if Nevuchadnetzar took a haircut every day like Jewish kings. This would support Rav Saadia Gaon. Ibn Ezra’s main proof is the difficulty in returning to power after seven years of not ruling. However, there is a Midrash in the beginning of Kohelet that says Shlomo lost power, but it is not clear for how long. In any case, Shlomo is different because the Jews were peaceful, cohesive and loved their king; whereas the brutal Babylonian environment would lead to many coups, murders and fractures, etc.
Obviously, the bricks and cylinders would not record this episode. But if there is substantial non-royal writing extant from Babylon (and I have no idea whether there is), we might expect to see this episode recorded. We also need to consider whether and who would write about him during his absence, and whether and how he would censor and succeed in censoring this information upon his return. Clearly, he does not censor Sefer Daniel. In fact, he seems to publicize the incident, whether he's speaking directly to Daniel to record this episode in his Sefer or a Babylonian scribe to record this, or whether Perek 4 is a speech given to the public or someone else. In fact, he might even record it on the cylinders and bricks, since he has shown how contrite this episode has made him.
With regard to the Da’at Mikra, I don't know enough information. If scholars are certain that Nevuna'id was an emperor, then it seems compelling to identify him with Nevuchadnetzar, but even then I would need to know more information.
Yair Levie - Logically, it makes sense to adopt the Ibn Ezra approach that Nevudchanetzar just acted like a wild animal and did not actually turn into one. One idea that would support this is the concept of ‘Teva’, meaning that if Nevudchanetzar actually turned into a wild animal it would be clear that it was Hashem who did it and intervened; however, if he was just acting like a wild animal it could just be Nevudchanetzar acting crazy and it would decrease Hashem’s visible presence in our world, which increases the Teva behind which Hashem likes to disguise Himself. Regarding no records being found of Nevudchanetzar being crazy, I think it is because everyone else, besides the Jews, looked up to Nevudchanetzar as their fearless leader. However, the Jews saw the truth. Thus, only the Jews recorded the times while Nevudchanetzar was going crazy while everyone else just pretty much worshipped him and stayed loyal to him and did not write anything bad about him. This is supported by Professor Berman’s comments that usually, similar to modern day resumes, old records failed to note any setbacks anyone had, and thus Nevudchanetzar going crazy was not mentioned in any old record books. I think Da'at Mikra’s approach is a stretch and that mine and Professor Berman’s approach makes much more logical sense.