After delivering a devastating heavenly decree, Daniel transitions from prophecy to practical counsel. He offers the formidable Babylonian king a glimmer of hope and a moral path that might sweeten the harsh judgment. Addressing the monarch with careful diplomacy, Daniel acknowledges his royal status [רש״י] and suggests that since the decree is inescapable, the king should willingly accept his guidance [מצודת דוד]. Rather than forcing his opinion, Daniel respectfully asks that his counsel find favor in the ruler's eyes, leaving the ultimate choice in the king's hands [רש״י, מצודות, אלשיך]. The core of this advice is a call to redeem his wrongdoings through acts of charity and to atone for his transgressions by showing mercy to the poor [אבן עזרא, שטיינזלץ]. By doing so, the king might secure an extension of his tranquility and delay the impending disaster.
A profound question arises regarding why Daniel would offer a lifeline to the wicked ruler responsible for destroying Jerusalem. The primary approach among commentators is that Daniel was not motivated by affection for the king, but by a deep concern for his own people. Observing the exiled Israelites impoverished and begging for food, Daniel seized the opportunity to persuade the king to open his royal treasuries and sustain them [רש״י, אלשיך]. Furthermore, offering this constructive advice proved to the king that Daniel did not interpret the dream negatively out of personal spite or hatred, but genuinely sought his well-being [אלשיך]. Another perspective suggests that this solution was already embedded within the king's dream. Just as the great tree in the vision provided food for everyone, Daniel understood that the king's only path to survival was to stop exploiting others and begin nourishing all of humanity [מלבי״ם].
The proposed remedy operates on a principle of precise retribution. The king had sinned through arrogance, domination, and the humiliation of others. His spiritual repair therefore required the exact opposite movement of submission, mercy, and the uplifting of the destitute, which would ultimately lead him to true humility before God [יוסף אבן יחיא, אלשיך]. Commentators explore the distinction between the different types of wrongdoings and their respective cures. While some view the dual mention of sins and iniquities as a poetic repetition [מצודת דוד], others identify a precise, multi-stage process of atonement. Under this view, basic sins represent unintentional errors or acts driven by physical desires and flawed perception, which can be remedied with standard charity. Iniquities, however, refer to completely deliberate, rebellious acts born from a distorted intellect and heresy, such as erecting an idol and forcing people to bow to it. To atone for such severe transgressions, a much deeper and broader campaign of mercy toward the impoverished masses is required [מלבי״ם, אלשיך].
Ultimately, the promised result of these moral actions is an extension of the king's peaceful reign. Engaging in charity and granting mercy to the poor does not completely erase the heavenly decree, as repentance does not entirely uproot divine judgment for gentile nations. However, it possesses the power to buy time and significantly delay the impending catastrophe [חומת אנך, שטיינזלץ]. In practice, this period of extended life and tranquility will endure exactly as long as the king actively continues to sustain his charitable deeds [מלבי״ם].