Sefer Daniel Chapter 6 Based on HaRav Yaakov Medan https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/sefer-daniel/daniel-11-lions-den-1 and https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/ketuvim/sefer-daniel/daniel-11-lions-den-2

Why were these ministers jealous of him? Was this simply a matter of routine court politics, with functionaries naturally disposed to trying to bring down whoever is more senior than themselves, with a view to being promoted to replace them? It would seem that there is room to draw a parallel between the attitude of the satraps towards Daniel and the views held by Haman, just a few years later, during the kingdom of Persia and Media:

Up until this point, pure anti-Semitism is practically unknown in Tanakh. The war against Babylon had a clearly nationalistic background. The Babylonians had nothing against Jewish faith in God and His Torah; they seem to have had no problem with Jews being Jewish. The Kingdom of Yehuda was destroyed as part of a broader, regional conflict – specifically, between the Babylonian Nevukhadnetzar and the Egyptian Pharaoh. The Kingdom of Yehuda, under King Tzidkiyahu, chose to cooperate with Pharaoh and his allies and to turn its back on its covenant with Nevukhadnetzar – and that is what led to its fall.

It is difficult to define the reason for pure hatred of Jews. Historians have invested great efforts in trying to understand modern anti-Semitism. We may posit that a nation which views itself – and rightly so – as the eternal nation, surviving and persisting where all others have arisen and eventually declined, represents a threat to other nations, giving rise to potent hatred. In any event, under each different world power, Am Yisrael is forced to address a different challenge. Daniel was persecuted by the royal ministers apparently simply because he was Jewish. The prohibition of prayer was just an excuse, as the text itself makes clear.

Why was it specifically in the kingdom of Persia and Mede that hatred of Jews developed? Perhaps the answer has more to do with time than with place. Am Yisrael was the first nation to be exiled and still retain its national spirit. Its people, such as Daniel and his companions, were shown to be courageous and talented. This was a threatening phenomenon, and perhaps it is this that gave rise to hatred. Indeed, it is during the Second Temple Period that we find this sort of anti-Semitism manifest elsewhere, as well, especially in Egypt. Josephus, in his Against Apion and in his autobiography, The Life of Flavius Josephus, engages in polemics with writers of his times and of previous generations who hated Jews. The Egyptian historian Manetho had created a history of the Jewish People from the time of the Exodus, presenting a clearly anti-Semitic perspective, and Josephus countered his claims as well. It seems that this was also one of the aims of his great oeuvre, Antiquities of the Jews.[3] In this book, Josephus aspired to provide the Hellenist Roman reader with an organized picture of Jewish history and to supply firm proof for each of the historical assertions about the nation, thereby disproving the claims of those who hated them.

(3) This work was intended mainly as a commemoration of the Jewish nation, which was gradually being eradicated under the yoke of the Roman Empire. Through the book, Josephus sought to convey to the world the Jewish heritage and to present the contribution of the Jewish nation to the development of mankind. From the perspective of this world-view, there is a similarity between the two comrade-adversaries – Elazar ben Yair, atop the walls of Masada, and Josephus, in the camp of the Roman army down below, laying siege to the Jews. Both were leaders of the Great Revolt up until Josephus's defection. At the sight of the well-oiled, efficient Roman war machine, both appear to have arrived at the conclusion that the Jewish nation had reached the end of its path. They were divided as to what this meant in terms of choosing a course of action. Josephus joined the stronger side which, it appeared to him, would be leading the world from this point onwards. He remained a Jew in his faith and in his private conduct, but cut off from the Jewish nation which, to his view, was about to be annihilated. Elazar concluded that the end should be met with courage and dignity, rather than with submission to the oppressor who was squeezing the life out of the Jewish nation. Both figures, in a certain sense, stood in contrast to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, who understood that Jewish independence, Jerusalem, and the Temple were lost, but believed in the continuation of Jewish existence around the Torah and the land. He asked for "Yavneh and its Sages" in order to continue with them until the Temple could be rebuilt. See Rosh ha-Shana 30a; Sukka 41a; Beitza 5b; Menachot 68b.

We may assume that this decree was issued close to the beginning of Darius's reign (which, as noted, was of brief duration). The Median Empire was in its early days; the king had no way as yet of knowing who was loyal to him and who was not, who was likely to rebel and who was probably going to remain quiet. Houses of prayer and religious speakers would influence the ability of every nation and language to organize itself one way or the other. An emergency measure prohibiting public gatherings and prayer services that might possibly be subversive might therefore be interpreted as a proper measure to consolidate the rule of the new king – Darius the Mede.

Prayer

(6) R. Yehuda Ha-Chasid (and perhaps also his disciple, R. Elazar of Worms, "Ha-Roke’ach"); see Sefer Chassidim (Jerusalem, 5730), siman 787. According to Abravanel (ma'ayan 7, tamar 2), Daniel prayed with the assumption that he would not be caught doing so in his own home, rather than with the deliberate intention of sacrificing his life. However, the Malbim (cited above) argues that the fact that the text notes the "open windows" indicates that Daniel prayed in full public view, not in hiding. However, he too maintains that Daniel's intention was not to give up his life; see n. 1 above.