The Man Behind Yisrael's Holy Mothers
The Torah ends Parashat Vayeira with the news that Milkah has borne children to Avraham's brother Nachor (Bereshit 22:20): וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֻּגַּד לְאַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה יָלְדָה מִלְכָּה גַם־הִוא בָּנִים לְנָחוֹר אָחִיךָ (And it came to pass after these things, that it was told to Avraham, saying, Behold, Milkah, she also, has born sons to Nachor your brother). Avraham was 137 years old, his wife Sarah having just passed away at 127, and we know from the Agra d'Kalla on Bereshit 11:29 that Milkah was even older than Sarah: מִלְכָּה הָיְתָה הַבְּכִירָה וְשָׂרַי הַצְּעִירָה (Milkah was the elder and Sarai, the younger). That means that when Avraham heard this news, Milkah was a very old woman. True, she had given birth to eight sons, but the pasuk strongly suggests with the words גַם־הִוא (she also) that these births also took place in her old age similar to what happened with her sister Sarah.
The Ramban states in his comment on Bereshit 22:20: וְגַם נָחוֹר זָקֵן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינֶנָּה בַּחוּרָה, אֲבָל עָשָׂה ה' לָהֶם נֵס שֶׁנִּפְקְדוּ בִּימֵי הַזִּקְנָה. וְזֶה טַעַם "מִלְכָּה גַם הִיא", וּבְדִבְרֵי רַבּוֹתֵינוּ יֹאמַר שֶׁנִּפְקְדָה כַּאֲחוֹתָהּ (And also Nachor was old, and his wife wasn't young, but Hashem did a miracle for them, that they were remembered in their old age. And this is the meaning of 'Milkah, she also', and according to the words of our Sages, it says that she was remembered like her sister). The Ramban adds why this news would have been relevant to Avraham: בַּעֲבוּר הֱיוֹתָהּ בַּת הָרָן אָחִיו הָיְתָה בְּשׂוֹרָה לְאַבְרָהָם שֶׁנִּפְקַד אָחִיו הַגָּדוֹל בְּבָנִים רַבִּים מִבַּת אָחִיו הַמֵּת (Because [Milkah] was the daughter of Haran, [Avraham's] brother, it was good news to Avraham that his older brother [Nachor] had been granted many children through the daughter of his deceased brother [Haran]).
Ramban's explanation points us back to the earlier genealogy that identifies Milkah's father and names Yiskah (Bereshit 11:29): מִלְכָּה בַּת־הָרָן אֲבִי־מִלְכָּה וַאֲבִי יִסְכָּה (Milkah, the daughter of Haran, father of Milkah and father of Yiskah). Who was Yiskah? The Gemara says (Sanhedrin 69b): וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק יִסְכָּה זוֹ שָׂרָה (And R' Yitzchak said, Yiskah is Sarah). Sarah and Milkah were therefore sisters, daughters of Haran.
The Agra d'Kalla returns to Milkah being the elder and Sarah the younger, and asks why Avraham, who was the older brother (contrary to the Ramban's opinion, see Bereshit Rabbah 45:1), married the younger while Nachor married the elder. It should have been the other way around. He answers: וְהִנֵּה הָיָה מֵהָרָאוּי שֶׁאַבְרָהָם יִשָּׂא אֶת מִלְכָּה, אַךְ אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ רָאָה בְּרוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ שֶׁרַק לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ יָאֲתָה שָׂרָה הַצַּדִּיקֶת, וְגַם בְּמִלְכָּה הָיוּ כְּלוּלִים נִיצוֹצוֹת הַקְּדוֹשׁוֹת חֶמְדַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲלֹא הֵנָּה רִבְקָה רָחֵל לֵאָה, וְרָאָה שֶׁזֶּה יָאוּת לְנָחוֹר שֶׁהוּא מוּכָן לָזֶה עַל יְדֵי מִפְלְאוֹת תָּמִים דֵּעִים שֶׁרַק לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ נִתְכְּנוּ עֲלִילוֹת (It would have been fitting for Avraham to marry Milkah; but Avraham Avinu saw through his ruach ha-kodesh that Sarah ha-tzadiket was suited to him alone. And also in Milkah were contained the holy sparks, Yisrael's cherished ones, i.e., Rivkah, Rachel, Leah, and he saw that Milkah was suited to Nachor, who was prepared for this through the wondrous workings of the One perfect in knowledge, for He alone determines how events unfold). So even though we tend to see Sarah as uniquely positioned to become the matriarch of the family of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov, the truth is that both she and Milkah brought that family into being: Sarah as the mother of Yitzchak, and Milkah through the line that would bring Rivkah, Rachel, and Leah into the family.
One of Milkah's sons was Betu'el, the father of Rivkah (Bereshit 22:22-23); therefore, Rivkah was Milkah's granddaughter. Later, the Torah identifies Lavan as Rivkah's brother (Bereshit 24:29), and then introduces Leah and Rachel as Lavan's daughters (Bereshit 29:16) – great-granddaughters of Milkah. But Lavan's household included two more important descendants of Milkah. The Targum Yonatan on Bereshit 29:24 and 29:29 states: זִלְפָּה בְּרַתֵּיהּ דִילֵידַת לֵיהּ פְּלַקְתֵּיהּ … בִּלְהָה בְּרַתֵּיהּ דִילִידַת לֵיהּ פִּילְקָתֵיהּ (Zilpah, his [Lavan's] daughter, whom his concubine had borne him … Bilhah, his [Lavan's] daughter, whom his concubine had borne him). Interestingly, this explains why Zilpah and Bilhah were called handmaids (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 36:10): לָבָן לָקַח אֶת שְׁתֵּי שִׁפְחוֹתָיו וְנָתַן לִשְׁתֵּי בְנוֹתָיו. וְכִי שִׁפְחוֹתָיו הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא בְּנוֹתָיו הָיוּ? אֶלָּא בְּנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם מִפִּילֶגֶשׁ נִקְרְאוּ שְׁפָחוֹת (He [Lavan] took his two handmaids [Zilpah and Bilhah], and gave them to his two daughters [Leah and Rachel]. Were they his handmaids? Were they not his daughters? Rather, a man's daughters from a concubine are called handmaids).
Therefore, every one of the mothers through whom the Family of Yisrael was formed – Sarah, Rivkah, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah – descends from one man: Haran.
But there is more to Haran's family than just that, because Sarah and Milkah had a brother: Lot (Bereshit 11:27). We know the story. After S'dom and Amora were destroyed, Lot made it to a cave together with his two daughters. Fearing that no one was left alive to marry them and repopulate the world, the firstborn daughter devised a plan (Bereshit 19:32): לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת־אָבִינוּ יַיִן וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע (Come, let us give our father wine to drink, and we will lie with him, and we shall preserve offspring from our father). But lest we judge them harshly, understand that Chazal did not. Quite the contrary – they praised them (Rabbeinu Bachya on Bereshit 19:30): וְרז״ל אָמְרוּ שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּנוּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם כְּדֵי לְיַשֵּׁב הָעוֹלָם (Our Sages of blessed memory said that their intention was for the sake of Heaven, in order to repopulate the world). This is why the Torah refrained from using any expression criticising their conduct as incestuous or licentious.
But what's the point? Just that Haran had two more righteous female descendants? No, it's more than that. It has to do with the two male children born through Lot's daughters – Moav and Ben-Ammi, from whom came the nations of Moav and Ammon. Many years later, Hashem commanded Moshe not to make war against them (Devarim 2:9,19). Considering that Hashem had earlier commanded him to make war against Midian because they had come to aid Moav in bringing harm to Yisrael, Moshe could not understand why he wasn't able to make war against Moav itself. Ulla explains the rationale (Bava Kamma 38b): אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לֹא כְּשֶׁעָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתְּךָ עָלְתָה עַל דַּעְתִּי, שְׁתֵּי פְּרִידוֹת טוֹבוֹת יֵשׁ לִי לְהוֹצִיא מֵהֶן – רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה וְנַעֲמָה הָעַמּוֹנִית (Ha-Kadosh, baruch Hu, said to him, Not as it rose in your mind did it rise in My mind. I have two good fledglings to bring out from them: Rut ha-Moaviah and Na'amah ha-Ammonit). Rut would become the progenitor of David ha-Melech, and Na'amah would become the wife of Shlomo ha-Melech and mother of Rechavom, through whom the Davidic dynasty would be established after Shlomo.
We have now seen something stunning. All six women through whom the Family of Yisrael came into being as well as the two women who were central to the formation of the Davidic dynasty, all came from Haran. Which raises an interesting question: What did Haran do that he merited such a remarkable family line?
The Torah tells us little about Haran, except for one interesting fact (Bereshit 11:28): וַיָּמׇת הָרָן עַל־פְּנֵי תֶּרַח אָבִיו בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתּוֹ בְּאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים (And Haran died before Terach his father in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim). Why do we need to know that Haran died "before Terach his father" [עַל־פְּנֵי תֶּרַח אָבִיו]? Rashi explains that he died "on account of Terach his father", who turned over Avraham to Nimrod after Avraham smashed the idols in Terach's store. When Avraham was thrown into the furnace, Haran stood by, uncertain which side to choose. Based on Bereshit Rabbah 38:13, Rashi quotes Haran's inner voice: אִם אַבְרָם נוֹצֵחַ אֲנִי מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאִם נִמְרוֹד נוֹצֵחַ אֲנִי מִשֶּׁלּוֹ (If Avraham is victorious, I will say that I am with Avraham; if Nimrod is victorious, I will say that I am with Nimrod). When Avraham emerged alive, Haran declared himself to be with Avraham. Nimrod's officials grabbed him and threw him into the fire. However, no miracle was forthcoming for him, and he was burned to death.
Haran's act was courageous, but his choice conditional. He waited to see who would prevail before declaring his allegiance. The Yefeh To'ar on Bereshit Rabbah 38:13 explains why no miracle was performed for him: מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין נֵס אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁמּוֹסֵר נַפְשׁוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא יֵעָשֶׂה לוֹ נֵס. וְהָרָן חָפֵץ דַּוְקָא בְּנֵס (Because a miracle is only performed for someone who is willing to put his life on the line without expecting a miracle be done for him, and Haran specifically wanted a miracle).
Let's not denigrate Haran's deficient mesirut nefesh, for the S'fat Emet defends him (Lech Lecha 5): אַף שֶׁלֹּא הָי׳ מְס״נ בִּשְׁלֵימוּת וְלָכֵן נִשְׂרַף, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן שְׂרֵיפָתוֹ הָי׳ בִּכְלַל קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם וְנִשְׂרַף בַּעֲבוּר הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ וְאֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַפֵּחַ שְׂכַר כָּל בְּרִי׳ (Even though he was not moser nefesh completely, and therefore he was burned; nevertheless, his being burned was considered a kiddush Hashem, and he was burned for the sake of Hashem, may He be blessed, and ha-Kadosh, baruch Hu, does not withhold the reward of any creature). And we may suggest that this same merit was reflected in the ten remarkable women who descended from him: Sarah, Rivkah, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah, Lot's two daughters, Rut and Na'amah.
So how is any of this relevant to us? When we look at ourselves, we may see the imperfection of our avodah, notice ulterior motives, or view other flaws in the performance of our mitzvot. We might conclude therefore that it's all worthless, but R' Nachman teaches us that even when we may not serve Hashem with perfection, we must not dismiss the good within our actions, no matter how imperfect they may be (Likutei Moharan 282:2): כִּי עַל כָּל פָּנִים אֵיךְ שֶׁהוּא, עַל כָּל פָּנִים הָיָה אֵיזֶה נְקֻדָּה טוֹבָה בְּהַמִּצְוָה וְהַדָּבָר טוֹב שֶׁעָשָׂה (For, in any case, however it was, there was, in any case, some good point in the mitzvah and the good deed that he did).
The S'fat Emet speaks about Haran's incomplete mesirut nefesh and says that his burning still counted as a kiddush Hashem. R' Nachman speaks about our own mitzvot – that even when a mitzvah is imperfect, there is still a good point in it. Together, these teachings remind us not to give up on our avodah when it falls short of perfection. Even an imperfect act of avodah is precious to Hashem and has its reward.
