Yerovam's Rebellion/2

Yerovam's Rebellion

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators offer several possible motives for Yerovam's rebellion and the people's displeasure with Shelomo. The vast majority of medieval sources suggest that Shelomo's building of the Milo and closing of the city's breaches caused inconveniences for the nation and cut them off from both their king and the Mikdash.  Moreover, the projects demonstrated that Shelomo was not as interested in the people's welfare as he was with the pleasure of the daughter of Paroh. 

Others suggests that economic, security, and/or tribal  issues lay at the core of the revolt. Thus, according to some scholars, Shelomo's extreme taxation policies took a toll on the people, and when he decided to build the Milo, they were no longer willing to quietly bear the burden. Hoil Moshe, instead, suggests that Yerovam complained about security issues caused by the expansion of the city. A final approach looks to the longstanding tribal rivalry between Yosef and Yehuda, suggesting that Yerovam, hailing from Ephraim, was mainly interested in bringing the nation's leadership back to Yosef.

As the above issues are not mutually exclusive, it is possible that each factor might have contributed to Yerovam's desire for change, and that it was a combination of all the above issues that led to the uprising.

Religious and Social Rebellion

Yerovam's opposition to Shelomo came in reaction to several of the king's building projects which demonstrated that Shelomo cared more for the daughter of Paroh than for the people's religious and social welfare.

Sources:R. Yochanan in Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 101bAbout the Bavli, RashiMelakhim I 11:26-28About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef KaraMelakhim I 11:26-28About R. Yosef Kara, RadakMelakhim I 11:26-27About R. David Kimchi, RalbagMelakhim I 11:26-28About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelMelakhim I 11:27About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

"וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הֵרִים יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ"

• According to Rashi and R"Y Kara, the verse does not mean to introduce how Yerovam rebelled but rather the reason behind the attempted coup.  In English the verse would read, "this is the matter about which Yerovam rebelled: Shelomo had built the Milo...."¹
• The others apparently understand the verses to mean "And this is the manner in which Yerovam rebelled. [He said] 'And Shelomo built....'".  Alternatively, they understand the word "הַדָּבָר" to mean "הדיבור",‎² so that the verse reads "This is the speech through which Yerovam rebelled...".³ Either way, the verse introduces the actual rebellion: Yerovam's public rebuke of Shelomo's actions.

What is the מלוא? These sources disagree regarding the nature of the Milo:

• Closed breaches – According to the Bavli, Rashi, and R"Y Kara the word comes from the root "מלא" and refers to the filling in of the holes that David had left in the city walls.  Thus, the two building projects mentioned in the verse are really one and the same.
• Gathering place  – Radak, instead, suggests that it refers to some sort of square in which the people would gather, as in the verse "קָרְאוּ אַחֲרֶיךָ מָלֵא" in Yirmeyahu 12. [According to him, the closing of David's holes was a distinct building project.]

What was problematic about Shelomo's building projects? Most of these sources suggest that building the Milo was necessary only in order to construct a palace for the daughter of Paroh,⁴ and led to inconveniences for the rest of the nation:

• Less access to the Mikdash – According to the Bavli, Rashi, and R"Y Kara, David had intentionally left entry points to ease the way of pilgrims coming to Jerusalem for the holidays and enable them to seek out God. With Shelomo's building of the Milo these entrances were no longer accessible.⁵ 
• Less access to the king – Ralbag and Abarbanel add that David had left entry points for the people to visit the king whenever they had a grievance or a matter for him to judge.  By closing the openings, Shelomo sent a message of inaccessibility⁶ and that he was no longer interested in giving hearings to the nation.⁷

From these sources it is unclear if the people were most upset about Shelomo's misplaced priorities in placing the daughter of Paroh above their needs, the inconveniences themselves, or the king's distancing of himself from the people.

Marriage to Bat Paroh – When the verses speak of Shelomo's many wives, they single out the daughter of Paroh, suggesting that she more than the others might have swayed his beliefs.⁸ This position builds off this negative evaluation of the marriage, suggesting that it impacted not only Shelomo's personal beliefs but also policy decisions regarding entry to the Mikdash and palace.  Moreover, while one might have opined that the marriages were a source of dissatisfaction only to Hashem, and that on the earthly plane there were other factors that led to the revolt, this position suggests that, in fact, both God and man found them problematic.

Appointment of Yerovam – These sources posit that the verses are achronological and that Yerovam was appointed by Shelomo before the revolt.⁹  It is possible that the new position is what gave him the confidence (and credibility) to publicly oppose Shelomo.¹⁰ Alternatively, it was his role as supervisor of the labor tax that alerted him to the problematic aspects of Shelomo's building policies.

Achiyah's prophecy – These sources assume that this took place before Yerovam's decision to rebel and is part of what prompted it.

Economic Issues

Yerovam revolted due to Shelomo's overly harsh and inequitable taxation policies.

Sources:some modern scholars¹¹

"וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הֵרִים יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ" – According to this approach, these words are a heading introducing the events which led to the rebellion.  They might be translated as, "And this is the matter of Yerovam's rebellion."

Shelomo's building projects – Shelomo's building projects are mentioned since they are directly connected to the rebellion, as they are what necessitated a further labor tax.¹²

"וַיַּפְקֵד אֹתוֹ לְכׇל סֵבֶל בֵּית יוֹסֵף" – It was Yerovam's position as supervisor of the labor tax which alerted him to the burden felt by the people and put him in position to oppose the king.

"וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ צְרוּעָה אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה" – R"E Samet¹³ suggests that the fact that Yerovam grew up as an orphan helped him identify with those struggling under the tax, and prompted him to champion their cause.

Why rebel only now?

• R" E Samet suggests that earlier in Shelomo's reign when the people were taxed to build the Mikdash and Shelomo's palace, they felt that the work was justified.  However, after years of labor, they began to tire, especially since the new projects were not glorious buildings but simply expansions of the city.¹⁴
• R"A Israel,¹⁵ following the opinion above which assumes that building the Milo was necessary for the palace of Paroh's daughter, suggests that the people were upset that public money and labor was being used to finance Shelomo's foreign wives and personal pleasures.

Why Yerovam and Ephraim? This position suggests that the revolt began specifically with the tribe of Ephraim since they bore an unfair share of the taxation.  Though this is not explicit in our chapter, it is evident from Chapter 4 which describes the division of the land into  twelve regions for purposes of supplying the king's needs.  The regions delineated cross tribal borders, and result in the tribe of Yosef being more heavily taxed than others.  Moreover, the fact that no regional governor is mentioned in Yehuda suggests that they were exempted from the tax, which could have only increased the friction between the tribes.

Relationship to the revolt of Chapter 12 – This approach views the rebellion in the time of Rechavam as a direct continuation of the one in the time of Shelomo.  What is only implied in our chapter, is explicit there as the people clamor for a tax break, "אָבִיךָ הִקְשָׁה אֶת עֻלֵּנוּ וְאַתָּה עַתָּה הָקֵל מֵעֲבֹדַת אָבִיךָ הַקָּשָׁה וּמֵעֻלּוֹ הַכָּבֵד אֲשֶׁר נָתַן עָלֵינוּ וְנַעַבְדֶךָּ".

The actual rebellion – This position could suggest that Yerovam's actual rebellion is not explicit in the verses, but presumably took the form of some type of public protest which garnered enough support that Shelomo feared for his throne and attempted to kill Yerovam. R" E Samet suggests that the phrase, "וְיָרׇבְעָם יָצָא מִירוּשָׁלָ‍ִם" actually hints to the particular form of Yerovam's protest, a defiant resignation from his post and decision to leave the capital city.

Parallels to Paroh – Chanan Gafni¹⁶ points out many parallels between the stories of Shelomo's treatment  of the nation and the enslavement in Egypt,¹⁷ suggesting that throughout Sefer Melakhim there is an implicit critique of Shelomo's taxation policies and that his downfall came as a punishment for his behaving in a manner similar to the Egyptian rulers.

Security Concerns

Shelomo's building projects raised concerns about the security of the city, provoking Yerovam to speak against the king.

Sources:Hoil MosheMelakhim I 11:27About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

What is the מלוא? According to Hoil Moshe the Milo was a paved earthen wall, meant to protect the city. ¹⁸

Building projects

• שְׁלֹמֹה בָּנָה אֶת הַמִּלּוֹא – This phrase does not mean that Shelomo built the original wall, but rather that he built on top of it. As he thought that the Milo did not provide sufficient protection regardless, he decided to expand the city and build houses on top of the earthen mound, planning to build a stronger stone wall around the whole city at some later point.¹⁹
• סָגַר אֶת פֶּרֶץ עִיר דָּוִד – This refers to the stone wall which was to be built later to close the "open" City of David.

Yerovam's rebellion – Yerovam used the removal of the original security wall as an excuse to speak against the king (criticizing Shelomo before the new wall was built). Hoil Moshe points out that it is likely that there were other factors involved as well, because this alone should not have been enough reason to cause a rebellion. Nonetheless, it gave Yerovam sufficient cause to begin to rally people against the king.

Appointment of Yerovam – The Hoil Moshe uniquely claims that Shelomo's appointment of Yerovam was a reaction to his rebellion.  Recognizing that acting against Yerovam would raise the ire of Yerovam's tribal mates in Ephraim, Shelomo decided to instead give Yerovam a promotion, hoping that it might serve to curb his appetite for power. The tactic was, in fact, successful and served to quiet Yerovam for a period of time (until after Achiyah's prophecy.)

Achiyah's prophecy – The Hoil Moshe suggests that the prophecy was given some time after Yerovam's initial protests and spurred a second round of rebellion. It was only after this stage that Shelomo felt the need to eliminate Yerovam totally.

Tribal Rivalry

Yerovam's rebellion was rooted in the age old tribal rivalry between Yehuda and Yosef.

"וְיָרׇבְעָם בֶּן נְבָט אֶפְרָתִי" – Yerovam is introduced as a member of the tribe of Ephraim since his tribal affiliation is central to understanding his motives.²⁰

"וַיַּפְקֵד אֹתוֹ לְכׇל סֵבֶל בֵּית יוֹסֵף" – In his role as supervisor of the laborers from the tribes of Yosef, Yerovam found himself perfectly situated to garner their support for a rebellion.

Previous rivalry – From Sefer Bereshit through to our story, Yehuda and Yosef are presented as rivals for leadership^:21 

• In Sefer Bereshit, while Yosef is the preferred son of Yaakov, Yehuda is the de facto leader among the brothers. 
• Both are destined to rule over their brothers. Yosef dreams that his brothers will bow down to him (as they do), while Yehuda is later identically blessed, "יִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְךָ בְּנֵי אָבִיךָ". 
• In Divrei HaYamim we are told that though Yosef was promised the birthright, Yehuda was promised kingship. 
• Under the leadership of Moshe, it is Yehoshua from the tribe of Yosef, and Chur from the tribe of Yehuda who take the role of his assistants.
• In the time of the conquest, as well, the two tribes both emerge as leaders, being the only tribes to conquer their territories.²²
• In the religious realm as well, each tribe is home to a Mikdash. Shiloh houses the Mishkan, while Yerushalayim is home to the Beit HaMIkdash.²³

Given this backdrop, it is not surprising then, that in the monarchic period the two tribes continued to vie for leadership.

Shelomo's building projects – This position would likely agree with the above approach that the immediate impetus for the rebellion was the inequitable tax burden placed on the tribes of Yosef, perhaps felt especially when they were assigned to build the Milo.  Their anger was exacerbated by the fact that the tribe of Yehuda was exempt from similar taxation.²⁴

"כִּי שְׁכֶם בָּא כׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל" – The fact that the rebellion against Rechavam is centered in Shekhem would further support the idea that the the tribe of Ephraim was at the heart of the opposition.

Echoes of Sheva b. Bichri – The people's rallying cry when rebelling against Rechavam, "מַה לָּנוּ חֵלֶק בְּדָוִד וְלֹא נַחֲלָה בְּבֶן יִשַׁי לְאֹהָלֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל" echoes that from the time of Sheva b. Bichri "אֵין לָנוּ חֵלֶק בְּדָוִד וְלֹא נַחֲלָה לָנוּ בְּבֶן יִשַׁי אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל".  It is possible that the similar cry reflects the similar backdrop of both uprisings. Just as the first rebellion was due to tribal tensions (between Binyamin and Yehuda), so, too, tribal friction played a role in this revolt.

Combination

As the above approaches are not mutually exclusive it is very possible that each of them played a role in the rebellion.

¹ See Yehoshua 5:4 for a similar usage of the phrase "וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר".  There, too, it serves to provide the background and reasons for an action rather than introducing the action itself. [The verse states, "וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר מָל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ" and then describes why the circumcision was necessary, but not how Yehoshua circumcised the nation.]

² See Ibn Kaspi who explicitly states this.  It is not clear, though, how he understands the mention of Shelomo's building projects and whether he thinks the second half of the verse constituted the content of Yerovam's speech or not.

³ See R"E Samet, "חטאי שלמה ונבואת אחיה השילוני" who understands R. Yochanan in the Bavli to be saying this.

⁴ They point to Melakhim I 9:24 where the building of the Milo is juxtaposed to the building of her house, concluding that one was needed for the other.

⁵ Ralbag and Abarbanel explain similarly but suggest that in building the Milo for Bat Paroh, the area which had previously been used for gathering of pilgrims was removed.

⁶ See Prof. E. Assis, "מרד ירבעם", Alon Shevut 117 (1987) who similarly suggests that David had intentionally left the Milo unbuilt and the City of David with breaches so that the people would feel that it was their city and not just the king's.  There was no control over who could enter or exit, serving to unite the people and equalize the higher echelons of the king's household with the common people.  Shelomo's building projects effectively closed off easy access to the the city from the masses, sending a clear message that it was the king's capital, and that he was above, not equal to, the people.

⁷ He and Radak also bring the possibility that the original breaches were left as an escape route in case the king was attacked.  Yerovam mocked Shelomo's overconfidence in thinking that he could close them and need not fear rebellion. He pointed this out to the people as a sign of Shelomo's arrogance.

⁸ Their marriage is mentioned repeatedly in the chapters covering Shelomo's reign  (see Melakhim I 3:1, 7:8, 9:16, 9:24 and 11:1), further suggesting that it was more significant than the others.

⁹ Ralbag suggests that the unit actually opens by introducing Yerovam as "עֶבֶד לִשְׁלֹמֹה", referring to his role as labor tax supervisor.  They then backtrack to explain how he had been appointed.

¹⁰ The commentators do not address why the Torah did not write the story according to the proper order of events. They could suggest that since the chapter is sets up as a list of Shelomo's foes, it chose to open this unit with the fact that Yerovam, too, was a rebel and only then give the backdrop to how this came to be.

¹¹ See R"E Samet, "חטאי שלמה ונבואת העונש בפי אחיה השילוני" and R" A Israel, "The Rebellion of Yerovam - Part 1".

¹² The word "סֵבֶל בֵּית יוֹסֵף" suggests that this was a labor corvee, rather than a monetary tax.  See the root's usage in Shemot 1:11 and 5:4-5, and in Nechemiah 4:11.

¹³ See his article cited above.

¹⁴ R"E Samet suggests that the Milo refers to the filling in of the hollow that had separated the hill of the City of David from the northern area upon which lay the Mikdash and palace.  To expand the city, Shelomo had to break down the original wall, then rebuild it (סָגַר אֶת פֶּרֶץ עִיר דָּוִד).

¹⁵ See his article cited above.

¹⁶ See his article, "מלכות שלמה – הכישלון וגורמיו", Megadim 31 (2000): 87-94.

¹⁷ These include: Shemot 1:11-14 and Melakhim I 9:15-21, 11:28, 12:4 (Cf. Ramban Shemot 1:10), Shemot 14-15 and Melakhim I 9:19-22, 10:26.  He also highlights the many similarities between the flight of Hadad to Paroh (mentioned earlier in our chapter) and Moshe's flight to Yitro, suggesting that the comparison serves to present Shelomo as a second Paroh. See In-laws and Gafni's article in Megadim cited in the note above for a full list of parallels and for additional connections.

¹⁸ see Melakhim I 3:1.

¹⁹ see Melakhim I 3:1.

²⁰ Prof. Avramsky, in his article, "מרד ירבעם והרקע לסור אפרים מעל יהודה" in עיונים בספר מלכים, (Jerusalem, 1985): 349-362, points out that Achiyah the prophet also hailed from Shiloh and the tribe of Ephraim, suggesting that it is no coincidence that he would back Yerovam.  On the other hand, one might argue that since Achiyah is acting according to Divine directives, his tribal affiliations should be irrelevant.

²¹ For a comprehensive comparison of the two leaders, see R"Y Medan's article, יוסף ויהודה.

²² See Yehoshua Chapters 15-17 and Shofetim Chapter 1.  See also the discussion of the division of the land in Sefer Yehoshua – Evolving Plans.

²³ Prof. Avramsky (see article cited above) suggests that this was perhaps one of the points of contention in the time of Shelomo.  The tribe of Yosef was upset at the choice of Yerushalayim and the placement of the Mikdash, having hoped that the centralized worship of Hashem would return to their tribe.

²⁴ See discussion above.