Our Gemara on Amud Aleph prohibits a Jewish woman from serving as a wet nurse for an idolater’s child. This falls under the general prohibition of aiding the welfare of morally corrupt nations.
Yet a famous Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 53:9) describes Sarah Imeinu as “nursing children” (Bereishis 21:7)—in the plural. Why “children”? It hints at a miracle: after giving birth to Yitzchak, skeptics claimed he was adopted - a foundling child left at the doorstep of a known charitable couple. To prove otherwise, Sarah’s milk flowed abundantly, and she was able to nurse many children of noblewomen at the celebration. The Midrash says:
Noblewomen were coming and having their children nurse from her. They were saying: ‘We are not worthy of having our children nurse from this righteous woman.’
…Anyone who came for the sake of Heaven became God-fearing.
…Even one who did not come for the sake of Heaven, dominion in this world was granted to him.
But once they rejected the Torah at Sinai, that dominion was removed.
The Merafsin Igrah (Vayera, p. 126) asks: Based on our Gemara, how could Sarah nurse idolatrous children?
Three answers are proposed:
- These women were followers of Avraham and Sarah who had adopted monotheism.
- If a woman has excess milk causing her pain, halacha permits her to nurse a gentile child (YD 154:2 Rama).
- Sarah’s intent was to inspire spiritual awakening, not to support idolatry—so this case is the exception.
However, this last answer needs nuance. The Midrash clearly distinguishes between those who came sincerely to have their child suckle from this holy woman and those who came cynically, just to “test” Sarah. The sincere ones became God-fearing. The cynical ones received temporary blessings, which were later revoked when their descendants rejected Torah at Sinai.
So the question remains: How could Sarah nurse those who would eventually return to idolatry?
The simple answer: Her intent was pure, and she couldn’t know their inner motives. A deeper answer is that even the “cynical” children received genuine spiritual benefit—albeit temporary. Their eventual fall came not from Sarah’s act, but from their failure to continue growing spiritually.
Her nursing planted a seed—but without proper nurturing in later generations, that seed could not sustain growth.
The deeper psychological insight: Influences matter, but they are not deterministic. Sarah’s milk may have carried holiness, but the ongoing development of that holiness depended on the home, the parents, and eventually the child’s own choices.
We are all born into influences—biological, spiritual, familial. But our greatness is determined by what we do with them. Sarah’s gift of holy nurturing had the potential to uplift—but only if it was received and developed.