New King or Dynasty/2

ויקם מלך חדש – New Dynasty, New King, or Same Old King?

Exegetical Approaches

Let us examine the three basic understandings of the phrase "וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ":

New Dynasty

The verse describes a dynastic change and not just a new king.

Sources:JosephusAntiquities 2:9:1About Josephus, Ibn EzraShemot 1:8About Ibn Ezra, Tzeror HaMorShemot 1:8About R. Avraham Saba, ShadalShemot 1:8About Shadal, Hoil MosheShemot 1:8About Hoil Moshe.

Egyptian Chronology – Shadal points out that this approach fits with the theory that Yosef and his brothers came to Egypt during the reign of the Hyksos,¹ but were enslaved by the subsequent dynasty which expelled the Hyksos. The exact opposite position is adopted by the Hoil Moshe who suggests that the Hyksos were the new dynasty which enslaved the Children of Israel. For details and other possibilities, see Egyptian Chronology.

Backdrop – Tzeror HaMor suggests that the dynastic change resulted from Egyptian resentment over the previous king's promotion of Yosef from slave to second in command.²

Absence of "וַיָּמָת" – According to this theory, the previous king did not die but was rather ousted, and thus the verses do not record his death with the standard "וַיָּמָת".³

"וַיָּקָם... עַל" vs. "וַיִּמְלֹךְ" – Ibn Ezra claims that the choice of the verb וַיָּקָם implies that the new king overthrew the previous dynasty.⁴

"מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ" – As any king succeeding to the throne would be a new king, Ibn Ezra suggests that the extra word חָדָשׁ must mean that it was not only a new king but also a new dynasty.⁵

"לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף" – Josephus notes that a dynastic change would readily explain why the new king was unfamiliar with Yosef.⁶

New King

The verse tells merely of the accession of a new king (and not a new dynasty).

Sources:Rav or Shemuel⁷ in the Talmud BavliEiruvin 53aSotah 11aAbout the Bavli and Shemot Rabbah1:8About Shemot Rabbah, most other exegetes, most explicitly R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 1:8About Ibn Kaspi and AbarbanelShemot 1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel.

Absence of "וַיָּמָת" – Proponents of this approach can simply explain that the death of the previous king is mentioned only in stories such as Bereshit 36:33-39 and the books of Melakhim and Divrei HaYamim where the royal line of succession is the focus of the narrative. The book of Shemot, in contrast, is interested not in the Egyptian monarchy per se, but rather only in its relationship to the Israelites, and thus does not deem it necessary to provide full details of the Egyptian royal timeline.⁸ An alternative approach is found in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer10 (11)About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which asserts that Yosef himself was the king of Egypt for the last forty years of his life. According to this, the death of the previous king (i.e. Yosef) is, in fact, to be found in the text immediately before the new king's accession.⁹

"וַיָּקָם... עַל" vs. "וַיִּמְלֹךְ" – Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel disagree with Ibn Ezra and maintain that the verb "וַיָּקָם" is used even when speaking of a king from the same dynasty. For other examples, see Melakhim I 8:20, Divrei HaYamim II 6:10 and 21:4.

"מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ" – See Ibn Kaspi that the word "חָדָשׁ" does not tell us anything other than that a new king ascended to the throne.¹⁰

"לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף" – Abarbanel explains that there were a number of intervening kings between Yosef's death and this new king.¹¹ Alternatively, exegetes suggest a number of possibilities which narrow the meaning of "לֹא יָדַע" or limit to what it refers – see Ignorance or Selective Memory.

Chronology of the Egyptian exile – According to Abarbanel, the multiplying of the Children of Israel in verse 7 may span the course of a number of generations. Thus, there is a significant time gap between verse 6 which records Yosef's death and verse 8 which describes the ascension of the new king.¹² For further discussion, see Chronology.¹³

Backdrop – Abarbanel says that had Paroh known Yosef, he would not have been concerned that the Israelites would rebel against him.¹⁴

Same Old King

The verse speaks of the same king who only instituted new policies.

Sources:Rav or Shemuel¹⁵ in Talmud BavliEiruvin 53aSotah 11aAbout the Bavli and Shemot Rabbah1:8About Shemot Rabbah, TanchumaShemot 5About the Tanchuma, Tanchuma (Buber)Shemot 7About Tanchuma (Buber), Rabbis in Shemot Rabbah1:8About Shemot Rabbah,¹⁶ Lekach TovShemot 1:8About Lekach Tov, RashiShemot 1:8About Rashi.

Whose initative? The Talmud Bavli and the Tanchuma differ regarding who conceived the plan to oppress the Israelites. While the Bavli (like the Biblical verses in Shemot) gives the impression that it was Paroh's own idea, the Tanchuma cites the verse in Tehillim 105:25 which speaks of the Egyptian people's change of heart to hate the Children of Israel.¹⁷ According to the Tanchuma,¹⁸ Paroh initially rejected the Egyptian nation's proposal to harm the Israelites, and "relented" only after he was temporarily dethroned. These different reconstructions reflect some of the impetuses of anti-Semitism which have repeated themselves throughout history.¹⁹

Diverging Motivations – As the "Same Old King" motif appears to turn the Biblical text on its head,²⁰ it is necessary to examine what motivated the various Rabbinic sources to adopt this position. On this matter, there appears to be a fundamental difference between the Talmud Bavli and the Tanchuma:

• The Bavli provides a proof from absence, noting that this approach may be derived from the fact that the death of a previous king ("וַיָּמָת") and coronation of a new king ("וַיִּמְלֹךְ") are not found in our text.²¹ The Tanchuma, however, makes no mention of this.
• The Tanchuma, in contrast, utilizes verses from Hoshea 5:7 and Tehillim 105:25²² to construct an elaborate theory that Hashem caused an Egyptian change of heart in order to punish the Children of Israel for their sins and stymie their attempts to assimilate into Egyptian society.²³ For the Tanchuma, the theory that it was the same Paroh who suddenly did an about face,²⁴ not only matches the description in Tehillim of "הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ"‎,²⁵ but also highlights that Hashem was pulling the strings rather than history just running its natural course. The Tanchuma thus gains on two fronts: Paroh's decrees are shown to be of Divine design, and they come as a punishment for sin.²⁶

Egyptian chronology and conservation of characters – According to Lekach Tov, this Paroh is the same as the one who reigned during the time of Yosef.²⁷ Accordingly, this Paroh would have lived a very long life, and according to some sources²⁸ may have still been alive at the time of the Exodus.²⁹ For other examples of Rabbinic identification of multiple characters as the same person and their resulting extraordinarily long life spans, see Midrash Identifications.

Absence of "וַיָּמָת" – The Talmud Bavli cites this as an impetus for the position that the king did not die.³⁰

"וַיָּקָם... עַל" vs. "וַיִּמְלֹךְ" – The Talmud Bavli cites the absence of "וַיִּמְלֹךְ" to support Rav/Shemuel's position that the king had previously ascended to the throne. See also Lekach Tov who interprets the word "וַיָּקָם" to mean that the king rose up against Israel as an enemy.³¹

"מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ" – The Talmud Bavli and Tanchuma give two different interpretations. According to the Bavli, "חָדָשׁ" describes the king's policies, while the king himself had always been in power.³² However, for the Tanchuma which posits that king had been temporarily deposed and was reinstated only after consenting to the Egyptian people's demands to oppress the Children of Israel, "חָדָשׁ" can also refer to the renewal of the king's reign.

"לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף" – These sources maintain that Paroh knew Yosef well, and only behaved as if he did not know Yosef and the good things Yosef had done for Egypt. The Tanchuma even underscores this by recounting how the king initially reminded his nation that they collectively owed a debt of gratitude to Yosef for his saving of Egypt. These sources thus succeed in casting Paroh and the Egyptians as terrible ingrates and even more deserving of their ultimate punishment, rather than simply being ignorant of Yosef's benevolent stewardship.³³

¹ Josephus, himself, in a different work (Against Apion 1:14), cites the Egyptian historian and priest Manetho who claims that the Hyksos are identical with the Israelites.

² Cf. Tanchuma below which also attributes the oppression to popular sentiment, and see Uriel Simon, בקש שלום ורדפהו (Tel Aviv, 2002): 91-92, and D. Sabato, Megadim 52 (2011): 41-57 who posit that the Egyptian enslaving of the Israelites was revenge for Yosef's enslaving of the Egyptians. See also Paroh's Concerns and Stages of Paroh's Plan.

³ Alternatively, see Ibn Ezra that "וְכֹל הַדּוֹר הַהוּא" in 1:6 may subsume Paroh among all of the Egyptians.

⁴ Ibn Ezra cites the verse in Shemuel I 22:8 "כִּי הֵקִים בְּנִי אֶת עַבְדִּי עָלַי לְאֹרֵב" as support. Cf. Minchah Belulah who says that the language of "וַיָּקָם" is reserved for pretenders to the throne. However, see below that this theory is not sustained by other Biblical usages of the verb, and see Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel who disagree with Ibn Ezra.

⁵ However, see below that the word חָדָשׁ is sometimes used without any such special significance.

⁶ See below, though, that Ibn Ezra 1:6 explains merely that it was a new generation.

⁷ The Gemara does not identify which of Rav or Shemuel takes this approach.

⁸ Cf. Shemot 2:23 where only the Egyptian king's death is noted, while his successor's assumption of the throne is never mentioned. However, see below that here too, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) and Shemot Rabbah posit that the king did not really die (but rather became a leper) and thus there was no successor.

⁹ Yosef's death is noted twice, both at the end of Sefer Bereshit and at the beginning of Sefer Shemot.

¹⁰ Ibn Kaspi is disputing Ibn Ezra's interpretation cited above. See also the usages of "חָדָשׁ" in Devarim 20:5, 22:8 and 24:5.

¹¹ Cf. Ibn Ezra 1:6 who learns from "וְכֹל הַדּוֹר הַהוּא" that the entire generation of Egyptians who knew Yosef had died out.

¹² Abarbanel points out that in addition to the intervening verse 7, there is also a Masoretic break separating the two verses.

¹³ According to the view that the Israelites were in Egypt for only 210 years, there is not a lot of time for intervening generations, as one needs to deduct from this total the 71 years until Yosef died and the 80 years of Moshe's age at the Exodus. Abarbanel maintains that they were in Egypt for a total of 240 years, which leaves a bit more time.

¹⁴ According to this, Paroh's fears were genuine, and not just intended for popular consumption. See Paroh's Concerns.

¹⁵ The Gemara does not identify which of Rav or Shemuel takes this approach.

¹⁶ Shemot Rabbah combines the elements of the Bavli and the Tanchuma.

¹⁷ This would also account for why the entire Egyptian people were punished by Hashem.

¹⁸ Or at least one opinion cited in the Tanchuma.

¹⁹ For further discussion of the motivations for the Egyptian decrees, see Paroh's Motivations.

²⁰ This is true with regard to both the words "מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ" and "לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף".

²¹ See notes above for an evaluation of the merits of this evidence.

²² Tehillim 105:23-25 bears parallels to and appears to be a retelling of Shemot 1:1-9. It is possible that the stimulus for the original form of our entire Midrashic motif of "Same Old King" was an attempt to relate the verses in Hoshea and Tehillim to our story in Shemot. This homiletical style of beginning with verses from Prophets and Scriptures and connecting them to Torah verses is well attested in Pesikta DeRav Kahana. If this is true, the Tanchuma preserves the original derivation from Hoshea and Tehillim, while the Bavli recast the motif as part of its series of Midrashic interpretations of the verses of the first chapter in Shemot. As a result of the Bavli presenting the motif bereft of its original context, it needed to reconstruct the basis for the Midrash using textual hooks (the lack of "וַיָּמָת" and "וַיִּמְלֹךְ") from the Shemot verses alone.
The verse from Tehillim and its Midrashic elucidation appear only in Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah, but not in Tanchuma Buber. There are two opposite ways to account for this discrepancy. Tanchuma Buber may have inadvertently left out the section due to a homeoteleuton (השמטה על ידי הדומות), or the section may be a later addition to the regular Tanchuma.

²³ The Tanchuma's indictment specifies their failure to observe the commandment of circumcision (as this was the only obligation explicitly given to Avraham and his descendants). For further discussion about whether the Children of Israel performed circumcision in Egypt and whether the slavery was a punishment for their sins, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage and Religious Identity in Egypt. Regarding possible assimilation, see Where did the Jews Live.

²⁴ Rather than a new dynasty or a new king.

²⁵ The verse in Tehillim attributes the slavery to a change of heart rather than the rise of a new king. It also speaks in plural language of the Egyptian people, rather than attributing the shift to Paroh alone. See above that the Tanchuma presents Paroh as following the will of his nation. The Tanchuma thus posits that Shemot and Tehillim speak of different stages which must be integrated to reconstruct the full story.

²⁶ Cf. R. SaadiaCommentary Shemot 1:10About R. Saadia who is diametrically opposed to this interpretation on theological grounds, as it implies a lack of free will. R. Saadia therefore explains the verse as saying that the Egyptians' hearts changed on their own, with "לִבָּם" being the subject and not the object of the verb "הָפַךְ" (as opposed to the Tanchuma which has Hashem as the subject of "הָפַךְ" as the context would imply). For more see Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice, Hardened Hearts and R. Saadia.

²⁷ This is not explicit in the other Midrashic sources, but it would appear likely that at least the Bavli would also agree, as it finds significance in there being no indication that the previous Paroh died.

²⁸ See Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) Shemot 2:23, Shemot Rabbah 1:34, and Rashi Shemot 2:23 who suggest that "וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם" merely means that the king became a leper (who according to Rabbinic tradition is equated with a corpse), and see Paroh's Death.

²⁹ See the dispute between R. Yehuda and R. Nehemiah in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Vayehi 2:6 as to whether Paroh also survived Yam Suf, and see Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 43 that Paroh went on to become king of Nineveh and lived until the time of Yonah.

³⁰ See discussion above as to whether the absence of "וַיָּמָת" is noteworthy or merely to be expected.

³¹ This interpretation is difficult since the text says that the king rose up "on Egypt," rather than on Israel.

³² See, however, the Maharal in the Gur Aryeh who attempts to argue that the dispute in the Bavli is only over whether it was a new dynasty or not, and that all opinions in the Bavli agree that it was a new king.

³³ This theme is accentuated in Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer. In contrast, see the approaches of the Tzeror HaMor, Simon, and Sabato cited above that the Egyptians resented Yosef and/or his enslavement of them. For more, see Paroh's Motivations.