The Book of Exodus opens with a simple statement: "Joseph died, along with all his brothers and that entire generation" (Exodus 1:6). But this seemingly straightforward sentence holds a crucial key. The Shemot Rabbah, a classic collection of rabbinic interpretations on Exodus, teaches us that as long as at least one of those who had originally descended to Egypt with Jacob was still alive, the Egyptians wouldn't dare enslave the Israelites. Their respect for Joseph and his family was a powerful shield.
But then, time marches on, generations pass, and the protection fades. “The children of Israel were fruitful, propagated, increased, and grew exceedingly, and the land filled with them” (Exodus 1:7). We read it almost as an afterthought. The Shemot Rabbah emphasizes that even with Joseph and his brothers gone, their God remained. It was divine providence ensuring the continuity of the Israelite people.
Now, about that "fruitful" part... how fruitful are we talking? Some interpretations in the Shemot Rabbah get pretty wild! One opinion suggests that each woman gave birth to six children at a time. Others, taking a close look at the Hebrew, see hints of twelve children per birth! They break down the verse: "Were fruitful" – two, "propagated" – two, "increased" – two, "grew" – two, "exceedingly [bimod meod]" – two, "and the land filled with them" – two, for a grand total of twelve! Another interpretation puts it at sixty, comparing it to a scorpion, which is known to birth a large number of offspring. Whether it was six, twelve, or sixty, the message is clear: the Israelites were multiplying at an astonishing rate.
Then comes the ominous shift: "A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph" (Exodus 1:8). This verse is ripe for interpretation. Was he truly a "new" king, a different pharaoh entirely? Or was he the same pharaoh, but with a changed attitude? Rav and Shmuel, two prominent rabbinic scholars, debated this very point. One said he was actually new, while the other argued that he simply issued new, harsher decrees against the Israelites. If he was the same pharaoh, why does it say he didn't know Joseph? The rabbis explain that he acted as if he didn't know Joseph.
The Rabbis offer a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the pharaoh's decision. Initially, he resisted the idea of oppressing the Israelites, remembering all that Egypt owed to Joseph. But his advisors pressured him, and when he refused to listen, they temporarily dethroned him! Only when he relented and agreed to their plans was he restored to power. Hence, "A new king arose" – a king renewed in his commitment to oppress the Israelites.
But what sparked this sudden change of heart? The Rabbis introduce a powerful idea connected to Hosea 5:7: "They have betrayed the Lord, for they have begotten foreign children; now a month will devour them with their portions." According to this interpretation, after Joseph's death, some Israelites began to abandon the covenant of circumcision, seeking to assimilate into Egyptian society. "Let us be like the Egyptians," they reasoned. As a consequence, God transformed the Egyptians' love for them into hatred. As it is stated: “He changed their hearts to hate His people, to harass His servants” (Psalms 105:25). So, the "new" king, the ḥadash king, who issued new decrees, becomes the instrument of their misfortune.
Rabbi Avin offers a chilling analogy: The pharaoh's actions were like someone stoning a person beloved by the king. The king reasons, "Behead him, because tomorrow he will do the same to me." In other words, by forgetting Joseph's contributions, the pharaoh was setting a dangerous precedent. Today, he claims to not know Joseph; tomorrow, he will declare, "I do not know the Lord" (Exodus 5:2).
This passage from Shemot Rabbah gives us so much to think about. It's a reminder that collective memory is fragile, that gratitude can be fleeting, and that even those in positions of power can be swayed by fear and prejudice. It asks us to consider: What happens when we forget the good deeds of the past? And how do our own choices contribute to the unfolding of history?