We ask the following database query: How is transference / change of monarchy indicated. The reader is encouraged to perform the query using a standard Biblical Konnkordance or search engine. This database query yields the list below. The list justifies the following Rashi inference: (1) Ordinary transference of monarchy is indicated by current king died ...so and so reigned (2) Change in reign(e.g. a king is more established) is indicated by so and so monarched (3) A change by overthrow is indicated by so and so arose on. The list below presents the results of the database query.

Verse	Type of transition	Hebrew words used
Gn36-33	Routine	Belah died, Yovav reigned in his place
1K22-40	Routine	Achav slept with his ancestors ....Achazyahu reigned in his stead
2C13-23	Routine	Aviyah slept with his ancestors ...Asa his son reigned in his stead
2S08-14:15	Change during reign (Reign was now secure)	God saved David wherever he went....David reigned ...
2C21-04	Overthrow	Yehoram arose over his father's kingdom, he took hold, and killed his father's entire house hold

Advanced Rashi: Rashi, based on the Talmud Sotah 11a, actually cites two opinions on the verse text A new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph. Rav and Samuel held opposite points of views: One held it was actually a new king (since it says new) while the other held that it was the same king with a new attitude (since it doesn't use the traditional language for routine transfers, so and so died...so and so reigned in his stead.)

We are defending the viewpoint that the king was the same. We offer three arguments and counter arguments:
• As we have shown above died...reigned is not the only phraseology used. Rather
  • For routine transfers the Bible uses the phraseology so and so died...so and so reigned instead
  • For changes in current reign, such as the change to a more secure reign in the time of David, the Bible uses the singleton ...David reigned.
  We therefore conclude that the lack of died ...reign does prove that it was a change in current reign
• Furthermore the verse does not use the word reign at all, whether with died or without. Rather the verse uses the word arose which as we saw in the above table indicates an overthrow.
  • We have established that there was an overthrow. But an overthrow of what?
  • Look carefully at the succeeding chapter. Pharoh decreed death on Jewish males but his own daughter pitied the babies and saved them.
  • Similarly when Jacob died all of Egypt mourned him 70 days and showed him great honor.
  • I conclude that Joseph and the Jews were highly respected. Joseph did not take advantage of the situation but rather gave people back their land. The Jews did not want to take over Egypt. But Pharoh as leader felt they might. So Pharoh overthrew his own people! He tried to remove the Jew's good name. And even so his own daughter refused to listen to him.
• Furthermore new in the Bible does not necessarily mean actually new. For example in Ez36-26 it states I will give you a new heart and new emotions in your midst.... Here the word new refers to change. God says I will give you a changed heart and changed emotions...

Let us summarize: The verse speaks about an overthrow. We also blatantly see that Pharoh tried to contradict the great admiration the Egyptians had for the Jews. We even see that Pharoh's own family did not listen to him. So indeed Pharoh overthrew his own nation. Furthermore the word new can mean changed. Finally if it was an actual new king then the Bible would have used the traditional phraseology he died ...he arose. So the best way to translate the verse is And a changed king overthrew Egypt - that they shouldn't appreciate Joseph.