17

The Torah records the passing of all the patriarchs and matriarchs:

Sarah - Bereishis 23:1-2

Avraham - Bereishis 25:8-9

Rochel - Bereishis 35:19

Yitzchak - Bereishis 35:29

Then Rivkah is not mentioned explicitly, but Rashi explains that this is not recorded in order so that people would not curse her as the mother of Esav. But nonetheless it is still alluded to in Bereishit 35:8.

The only mention I have found is in Bereshis 49:31, where Jacob mentions that he buried Leah in Ma'aras Ha'Machpela.

So why does the Torah not mention her passing like it does the rest of the Avos and Emahos?

Seth J
  • 41,606
  • 7
  • 85
  • 245
Binyomin Trager
  • 949
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14

3 Answers3

12

Sefer Chuzkuni Parshas Chaya Sara 23:2 says that it is not the way of the Torah to mention the death of a woman unless there is a specific reason such as by Sarah, Rachel, Devora, and Miriam.

Sarah is mentioned due to the significant amount of money Avraham spent to bury her - and this was one of the 10 trials of Avraham.

Rachel to let us know that she was not buried in the Mearas HaMachpela.

Devora to let us know why that location was known as Ailon Bachis.

Miriam to let us know that the well stopped when she passed away.

Gershon Gold
  • 139,471
  • 12
  • 231
  • 553
0

All the matriarch's deaths are listed - but whether Leah would be counted as a matriarch was not always clear, particularly during her own life. Remember, Jacob had chosen Rachel for his wife, loved her the most, and married Leah only by mistake. No doubt there was a fair amount of tension between the brothers over this. The Leah children were more numerous and older, but the Rachel children (Yosef, Binyamin) were the only sons of the "true" wife. We don't expect to hear about Hagar's death - she wasn't a "true" wife" - so too we shouldn't be fully surprised about Leah.

It is Yaakov's great insight to not choose one child or set of children to continue his line, but to accept both the Rachel branch and the Leah branch, and make all of them Bnei Yisrael. But that was an innovation - not an obvious decision.

Ben
  • 220
  • 1
  • 4
  • 1
    Hi Ben, welcome to Mi Yodeya! This is an interesting read of the verses. Do you have a source for this understanding or is it your own? – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 17:26
  • Hi and welcome. Hagar seems analogous to Yaakov's two concubines (unmarried mothers) more than to Leah. He did marry her so her status is higher than them. – Monica Cellio Dec 31 '12 at 17:57
  • @MonicaCellio He didn't really want to marry Leah though, and Leah stills views herself as hated when naming her first two children. So you are technically correct that she had a higher legal relationship, but that doesn't mean Yaakov thought of her as his primary wife. – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 18:03
  • 1
    Oh sure, Yaakov clearly preferred Rachel. But that doesn't mean that HKBH did, and it's his torah that doesn't tell us of her death. – Monica Cellio Dec 31 '12 at 18:07
  • 1
    This answer really needs more to justify it. While Leah's status may have been doubt very early on, the sources are clear that her son's were included as the founder's of the tribes from fairly early on - certainly well before she died. Moreover, I'm not sure it is accurate to say that it was Jacob (rather than God) who decided that all of his sons would be the founders of the tribes. – LazerA Dec 31 '12 at 18:13
  • 2
    @DoubleAA and Ben, I have to strongly disagree. Ya'akov clearly was unhappy with being tricked, but he did not seek an annulment or divorce from Leah, and he seemed ready and willing to honor the marriage throughout his lifetime. It does not mean he loved her as much as he loved Rachel, but he was devoted to her, and we treat her as a Matriarch. We don't bless our daughters Friday nights to be like Bilhah and Zilpah, but we do bless them to be like Leah, among the other Matriarchs. – Seth J Dec 31 '12 at 18:45
  • @SethJ No one is claiming she isn't a matriarch (whatever defines that 'status'). Just that it wasn't always clear that she would attain the same historical-religious-communal stature. Perhaps it was clarified eventually, but since she isn't primary, it shouldn't surprise us that her death isn't mentioned. – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 18:49
  • @LazerA What sources do you mean? It was clear that the Bnei Hashefachot would be full tribes also; that doesn't make their parents into full matriarchs. And it certainly seems like the first two patriarchs had the choice of who to pass on their legacy to. (We can argue about God's plan vs free choice, but it does seem like they were in control.) – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 18:50
  • @DoubleAA, when would that doubt have been resolved? I hope you aren't suggesting that the Torah has multiple authors. It seems pretty clear that she was important by the time of Reuven incident, and her sons were chosen for Malchuth and Kehunah (and she was the matriarch of Moshe). I don't necessarily think the absence of a burial story for her is such a cause for reams of commentary, but neither do I think it is evidence of her lessened status. – Seth J Dec 31 '12 at 18:57
  • @SethJ The Reuven incident (at least as understood by the Midrash there) shows that Yaakov put his bed by Bilhah instead of Leah! How much more of a lesser status would you want? – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 19:01
  • @Double AA, doesn't Rashi say that that waas divinely ordained, i.e. he saw that was where the Shechina was? So it would not perse indicate the way Yaakov saw Leah. – Shraga Dec 31 '12 at 19:05
  • @Shraga, you're only strengthening Double AA's point. Not only did Ya'akov feel she was a lesser wife, but G-d Himself did. I disagree, though. I think the evidence of the Torah as a whole points to her having an important role in the development of Klal Yisrael. – Seth J Dec 31 '12 at 19:08
  • @SethJ We're kind of going into this question http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/22616/759 now, and I agree it's clear Leah's children are important and certainly more important than the Benei Hashefachot (both in Breshit, in terms of their Nachalot, and as future leaders (Levi/Yehuda)), but the OP here is just claiming that although Yaakov didn't particularly care for Leah, he did included her children in the main Nachala (reminiscent of לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה על פני בן השנואה הבכור). So her kids were in full force, but she herself is only quasi in. – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 19:14
  • @DoubleAA and yet not only do we point to Ruth as a role model for her devotion, but we say she merited David as a result. Meaning we see the children as a reflection on the merits of the mother (at least in one instance). – Seth J Dec 31 '12 at 19:19
  • @SethJ Who would have been in Maarat Hamachpela with Yaakov if Rachel hadn't died early? I would have to guess Rachel because she is the more beloved/real/primary/[insert-adjective-here] wife. None of this is meant to diminish Leah, but if she is the minor-er character, then we don't need to expect to see her death, analogous to how we don't expect to see the death of other minor characters like Hagar or Bilhah. Granted, not all minor characters are the same, but all them of them more minor than some threshold don't get their deaths mentioned. – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 19:24
  • Why would Leah's level of importance in the Torah depend on how much Yaakov valued her anyway? It's quite obvious that the torah holds Leah in high regard, regardless of how Yaakov felt. – Shraga Dec 31 '12 at 19:35
  • @Shraga Maaseh Avot Siman leVanim. And where do you see that as so obvious? – Double AA Dec 31 '12 at 22:33
  • Wonderful comments! We must keep in mind that up until now, only one child was chosen to continue God's promise with Avraham and thus to inherit the responsibilities of Judaism: 1.God chose only Yitzhak, rejecting Yishmael and the many children Avraham had with other wives. 2.Yitzhak/Rivka chose only Yaakov, rejecting Esav. THUS: Yaakov's children likely expected a similar move. Only later was it Yaakov's HUGE INNOVATION to not select one inheritor, but to essentially treat all 12 like full children. But his decision is only made clear in Ch 48/49. And it must have been a big surprise! – Ben Feb 28 '13 at 18:15
  • We read the Chumash already knowing how stories will end - but we shouldn't! We should all be surprised to read Ch 48/49 and find out that all sons are chosen! (Interestingly, it seems like it was Yaakov's decision, not God's decision.) As such, I'm not surprised that Leah gets some short shrift. Her position was ambiguous all the way until the end. – Ben Feb 28 '13 at 18:18
  • I think that the importance of Leah is demonstrated by the sympathy that God feels for her unloved state and his favour in granting her many children as a compensation for her husband's indifference. –  Jul 02 '13 at 20:43
-1

Because Yakov was upset at her & therefore didn't mention her. He was upset she tricked him. So she spoke up and said "you tricked your Father Yitzchok into giving you the B'chor". Because of that he was upset at her and didn't speak of her.

Sader Hadoros says Yakov never forgave her and therefore didn't care to talk about her.

Moshe
  • 1,913
  • 5
  • 17
  • 1
    So the decision to include her death in the Torah was Yaakov's? I wouldn't have expected that – Double AA Apr 06 '20 at 10:59
  • 1
    First of all, Hashem wrote the Torah, not Yaakov. Second of all, where do we find that Yaakov resented Leah even all those years later? Seems they all reconciled around Yissachar's birth; no mention of Leah being the "hated wife" from that point forward. – DonielF Apr 06 '20 at 12:43
  • @DoubleAA why not? – Moshe Apr 07 '20 at 07:25
  • @DonielF Didn't moshe rabenu wright the torah (According to Rashi (Exodus 24:4)? – Moshe Apr 07 '20 at 07:27
  • see my edit @DonielF – Moshe Apr 07 '20 at 07:27
  • @Moshe Sure, he wrote it down, but chas v’shalom that he composed it! To paraphrase the Rambam in Hil. Teshuvah ch. 3, anyone who claims that even one word of the Torah came from Moshe himself and not from Hashem is called a Kofer and forfeits his Olam Haba. – DonielF Apr 07 '20 at 15:56