“And a new king arose that
did not know Yosef.” (Shemot 1:8)
Sefer Shemot discusses the suffering of Bnai Yisrael in Egypt and their eventual redemption. Our passage introduces the events that led to the enslavement of Bnai Yisrael. The Torah tells us that a new king arose over Egypt. This king did not know Yosef. He was not familiar with Yosef’s contribution to the salvation of Egypt from famine and to the creation of its great empire. The apparent message of the passage is that this king did not feel indebted to Yosef, his family, or Yosef’s descendants. Any favor that previous rulers had shown towards Bnai Yisrael was replaced by antipathy and prejudice.
Rashi comments that Rav and
Shmuel suggest alternative interpretations of our passage. Rav explains that this king was literally
“new.” Shmuel disagrees. He suggests that the king was new in his
conduct. He put in place new policies –
specifically towards Bnai Yisrael.[1]
Both the interpretation of
Rav and the alternative offered by Shmuel present problems. Rav explains that he understands the passage
in a literal sense. The simple meaning
of the passage is that a new king occupied the throne. However, there is a problem with this
interpretation. The passage contains an
extra word! There is no reason to refer
to the king as “new.” The passage could
merely have stated that a king arose who did not know Yosef. It would be
obvious from this statement that he was new.
Only a new king could be ignorant or unappreciative of Yosef’s
contribution to Egypt.
Shmuel’s interpretation
provides an explanation of this seemingly superfluous term. The passage refers to the king as “new”
because he is only new in his conduct and behavior. But, Shmuel’s
interpretation ignores the simple meaning of the passage. It seems that Shmuel is asking the reader to
interpret the passage in a manner that is completely inconsistent with its
obvious and clearly stated meaning.
Gur Aryeh and others respond
that Rav and Shmuel are not arguing over the actual historical event. They both accept that simple meaning of the
passage. The “new” king was a newly
appointed monarch. However, both are
bothered by the term “new.” Why is this
term included in the passage? If a king
arose who did not know Yosef, obviously he was new! By referring to this monarch as "new,” the Torah is
communicating a message about him. Rav
and Shmuel differ on the message.
In order to understand Gur
Aryeh’s explanation of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, we must consider our
passage more carefully. Although our
passage is short, it communicates three points: First, the passage tells us that a king arose. Second, the passage relates that the king
was – in some sense – new. Third, the
passage tells us that this king was not familiar with Yosef. Obviously, these three points are presented
as elements of a single passage because they are related. However, what is the precise nature of the
relationship?
Before we attempt to
understand the relationship between the three elements of the passage, let us
identify the fundamental unifying message of the passage. Then, we can consider the relationship
between the various elements within the context of the overall message.
The basic message seems
obvious: Bnai Yisrael entered Egypt as
a favored, privileged minority. In a
relatively short span of time they lost their privileged status and became
persecuted, enslaved, and eventually, subjected to genocide. The Torah explains how this shocking
transformation occurred. The Torah
tells us that the first step towards this transformation was somehow related to
a change in the ruler of Egypt.
Now, let us reconsider the
three elements of the passage. There
are two possible understandings of the structure of the passage: The first
option is that the first portion of the passage explains the second. A king arose. This king was “new.”
Because he was new, he did not know Yosef. In other words, he was not bound to the policies and behaviors of
his predecessor towards Yosef’s people.
This is Rav’s understanding of the passage.
However, the pasuk
can be understood differently. It is
possible that the second portion of the passage explains the first. The first portion of the passage tells us
that a king arose and that this king was – in some sense – new. The second portion of the passage explains
the nature of the king’s novelty. He
broke from the policies of his predecessors in his treatment of Yosef’s
family. This is Shmuel’s understanding
of the passage.
In other words, both Rav and
Shmuel agree that a king arose and that his attitude towards Bnai Yisrael was
very different from his predecessor.
However, they differ on the reason behind this change in attitude. Rav argues that this king’s rise to the
thrown represented a new era and a break with the past. He was not bound to the policies and
practices of his predecessors. He
implemented his own policies.
Gur Aryeh suggests that Rav
seems to be describing a deposing of the former monarch and his dynasty rather
than the succession of a monarch within a dynasty. A monarch who continues the dynasty of his predecessors is
committed to implementing his predecessors’ policies and basic outlook. However, when a king is deposed and his
dynasty is replaced, the new ruler owes no loyalty to the policies of the
past. Instead, he may be tempted to
distinguish himself from the previous rulers of the overthrown dynasty. He does this by breaking with the past and
establishing a new – perhaps radically new – path. According to Rav, this king’s attitudes towards Bnai Yisrael were
a consequence of his disavowal of the past and his need to strike out on a new
path that would be uniquely his.
Shmuel seems to describe a
king who continues the rule of an established dynasty. In general, he is devoted and loyal to the
status quo. However, this king was
“new” in a single, important respect:
He initiated a new set of policies towards Bnai Yisrael.
In short, Gur Aryeh suggests
that Rav and Shmuel agree that a king arose who veered drastically from
pervious polices towards Bnai Yisrael.
Yet, they disagree on the reason for this sudden change of course. Rav argues that the change was occasioned by
political upheaval. A king arose who
was completely new and disassociated from the policies of the previous
king. Shmuel suggests that this ruler
succeeded his predecessor in a normal political transition – without chaos or
upheaval. He had no reason to not
continue the policies of his predecessors.
Nonetheless, in one area – his treatment of Bnai Yisrael – he differed
drastically from the kings who preceded him.[2]
Let us consider Rav and
Shmuel’s positions more carefully.
According to Rav, it may not be meaningful to consider the causes or
roots of the new king’s hatred or persecution of Bnai Yisrael. This king had no commitment to past
policies. He represented political
change. It is not surprising that this
ruler would succumb to simple xenophobia and prejudice towards a privileged minority. Furthermore, Bnai Yisrael may have served as
a convenient scapegoat to be blamed for the inevitable setbacks and failures
that accompany political upheaval.
However, according to
Shmuel, this new king, in most respects, was devoted to established traditions,
mores and values. Why in one area did
he depart from tradition? Why persecute
Bnai Yisrael?
It seems reasonable to look
for an explanation in the immediately preceding chapters of the Chumash. The closing chapters of Sefer Beresheit deal
with the final years of Yaakov’s life.
Yaakov asks Yosef to bury him in the land of Canaan. Yosef agrees, but Yaakov is not
satisfied. He asks that Yosef pledge
himself with a vow and Yosef complies.
Nachmanides is concerned with Yaakov’s demand that Yosef provide a
vow. It is unimaginable that Yaakov
would not trust Yosef! Why was his
solemn commitment not adequate? Why did
Yaakov demand a vow? However,
Nachmanides notes that a subsequent event provides the explanation of Yaakov’s
behavior.
Yaakov dies and Yosef must
now fulfill the pledge he made to his father.
Yosef asks Paroh for his permission to leave Egypt and bury his father
in Canaan. He tells Paroh that he is
bound by a vow. Paroh allows Yosef to
travel to Canaan. But Paroh also indicates
that the vow is a factor in his decision; he is not willing to require that
Yosef violate a vow made to his father.
Apparently, Yaakov foresaw that Paroh would resist Yosef’s request. Therefore, Yaakov did not require a vow from
Yosef because he did not fully trust his son.
Yaakov demanded that a vow because he recognized that this vow would
help overcome Paroh’s resistance. Yosef
understood his father’s design. He
agreed with his father’s assessment and in petitioning Paroh, he noted that he
was bound by a vow to fulfill his father’s wishes.
However, Nachmainides
acknowledges that his interpretation raises an obvious question: Yaakov assumed Paroh would resist his wishes
to be buried in Canaan by Yosef. Yosef
agreed with this assessment. Both seem
to have foreseen some obvious issue that would incite Paroh to refuse Yosef’s
request. What was this issue? Nachmanides suggests two possibilities. However, let us focus on the first of these
responses. Nachmanides suggests that
Paroh might not have had any objection to Yaakov’s burial in Canaan. However, Yaakov wished Yosef to take charge
of the burial and personally execute his wishes. Yaakov and Yosef predicted that Paroh might object to Yosef’s
leaving Egypt to travel to Canaan and would instead insist that Yosef charge
his brothers with this mission.[3]
Nachmanides’ explanation
seems incomplete. He tells us that
Yaakov and Yosef correctly anticipated that Paroh would resist consenting to
Yosef leaving Egypt and traveling to Canaan.
However, he does not explain the reason Paroh would resist this
reasonable request. Let us consider the
obvious possibilities.
Perhaps Paroh was afraid
Yosef would not return. He relied on
Yosef’s council and administrative skills. He could not take the chance that
Yosef might abandon him. Yet, this is
not a reasonable explanation: When Yosef, his brothers, and a delegation of
Egyptian dignitaries traveled to Canaan to bury Yaakov, Yosef and his brothers
did not take their possessions and were not accompanied by their young
children. Certainly, Paroh had more
than an adequate number of hostages to assure Yosef’s return.
Perhaps Paroh was concerned
that Yosef’s return to Canaan would inspire in him a desire to return to his
ancestral home. He would return to collect
his family and belongings and would then lobby Paroh to allow him and his
family to return to their homeland. Of
course, Paroh could resist granting Yosef’s wishes. But he would risk losing
Yosef’s full support and assistance.
The difficulty with this explanation is that Paroh even resisted the
removal of Yosef’s body from Egypt.[4] This seems to indicate that Paroh was not
merely guided by the practical need to retain Yosef’s services. He did not want Yosef to be associated with
Canaan – not in life or even death!
It is not that difficult to
imagine Paroh’s concern. Yosef had
tremendous authority. In practical terms, he was the actual ruler. In order to hold his position, Yosef was required
to speak, dress, and generally conduct himself as an Egyptian. Yosef’s imitation of an Egyptian was
compelling enough to convince his brothers.
Why was this masquerade required?
Apparently, the Egyptians preferred to think of Yosef as one of their
own people. They were not eager to
acknowledge that they were ruled by a foreigner – one whose true allegiance was
to a different homeland!
Yosef’s masquerade as an
Egyptian – or, at least a naturalized citizen – was successful until his family
came to Egypt. The emergence of his
family must have created some controversy.
But, Yosef could reasonably argue that his entire family had transferred
its allegiance to Egypt. The death of
Yaakov and Yosef’s burial of his father in Canaan belied any claim of
uncompromised loyalty to Egypt. Egypt
was reminded of Yosef’s roots and his connection with a foreign homeland.
Let us return to our
question on Shmuel’s opinion: What
brought about the regime’s change in attitude towards Bnai Yisrael? What motivated the regime to deny and
renounce Yosef’s contribution to Egypt?
Perhaps, Yosef’s emergence as an alien from a foreign homeland was the
root cause of this change. As long as
Yosef was regarded as an Egyptian, the Egyptians could accept his leadership. But once events revealed to them that
Yosef’s allegiance was complicated and equivocal, the Egyptians came to resent
him and their dependence on the foreigner.
It is not surprising that this resentment led to eventual denial of
Yosef’s contribution to Egypt.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 1:8.
[2] Rav Yehuda Loew of Prague (Maharal), Gur Aryeh Commentary on Sefer Shemot
1:8.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 47:31.
[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 13:19.