(ח) וַיֵּצֵ֨א מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֜ם וּמֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֗ה וּמֶ֤לֶךְ אַדְמָה֙ וּמֶ֣לֶךְ צביים [צְבוֹיִ֔ם] וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִוא־צֹ֑עַר וַיַּֽעַרְכ֤וּ אִתָּם֙ מִלְחָמָ֔ה בְּעֵ֖מֶק הַשִּׂדִּֽים׃ (ט) אֵ֣ת כְּדָרְלָעֹ֜מֶר מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֗ם וְתִדְעָל֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ גּוֹיִ֔ם וְאַמְרָפֶל֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ שִׁנְעָ֔ר וְאַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר אַרְבָּעָ֥ה מְלָכִ֖ים אֶת־הַחֲמִשָּֽׁה׃ (י) וְעֵ֣מֶק הַשִׂדִּ֗ים בֶּֽאֱרֹ֤ת בֶּאֱרֹת֙ חֵמָ֔ר וַיָּנֻ֛סוּ מֶֽלֶךְ־סְדֹ֥ם וַעֲמֹרָ֖ה וַיִּפְּלוּ־שָׁ֑מָּה וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִ֖ים הֶ֥רָה נָּֽסוּ׃ (יא) וַ֠יִּקְחוּ אֶת־כָּל־רְכֻ֨שׁ סְדֹ֧ם וַעֲמֹרָ֛ה וְאֶת־כָּל־אָכְלָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵֽכוּ׃ (יב) וַיִּקְח֨וּ אֶת־ל֧וֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁ֛וֹ בֶּן־אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵ֑כוּ וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם׃ (יג) וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑י וְהוּא֩ שֹׁכֵ֨ן בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֜י מַמְרֵ֣א הָאֱמֹרִ֗י אֲחִ֤י אֶשְׁכֹּל֙ וַאֲחִ֣י עָנֵ֔ר וְהֵ֖ם בַּעֲלֵ֥י בְרִית־אַבְרָֽם׃ (יד) וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע אַבְרָ֔ם כִּ֥י נִשְׁבָּ֖ה אָחִ֑יו וַיָּ֨רֶק אֶת־חֲנִיכָ֜יו יְלִידֵ֣י בֵית֗וֹ שְׁמֹנָ֤ה עָשָׂר֙ וּשְׁלֹ֣שׁ מֵא֔וֹת וַיִּרְדֹּ֖ף עַד־דָּֽן׃ (טו) וַיֵּחָלֵ֨ק עֲלֵיהֶ֧ם ׀ לַ֛יְלָה ה֥וּא וַעֲבָדָ֖יו וַיַּכֵּ֑ם וַֽיִּרְדְּפֵם֙ עַד־חוֹבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר מִשְּׂמֹ֖אל לְדַמָּֽשֶׂק׃ (טז) וַיָּ֕שֶׁב אֵ֖ת כָּל־הָרְכֻ֑שׁ וְגַם֩ אֶת־ל֨וֹט אָחִ֤יו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ֙ הֵשִׁ֔יב וְגַ֥ם אֶת־הַנָּשִׁ֖ים וְאֶת־הָעָֽם׃
(8) And the king of Sodom went out, [as did] the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, who is Zoar; and they set up for battle in the valley of Siddim; (9) against Kedarlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five. (10) Now the valley of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and those that remained fled to the mountain. (11) And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their food, and left. (12) And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who lived in Sodom, and his property, and departed. (13) And one person who escaped came and told Abram the Hebrew, who lived by the trees Mamrei the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner; and they were in a contract with Abram. (14) And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he led forth the trained men born in his house, three hundred and eighteen [of them], and pursued [Lot's captors] as far as Dan. (15) And at night he divided himself and his servants [into two groups], and destroyed [their enemies], and pursued them until Chovah, which is to the left of Damascus. (16) And he brought back all the property, and also brought back his brother Lot, and his property, and the women also, and the people.
פדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא. אמר ליה רבא לרבה בר מרי "מנא הא מילתא, דאמור רבנן, דפדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא?" א"ל "דכתיב (ירמיהו טו, ב) "והיה כי יאמרו אליך אנה נצא ואמרת אליהם כה אמר ה': אשר למות למות, ואשר לחרב לחרב, ואשר לרעב לרעב, ואשר לשבי לשבי"." ואמר רבי יוחנן "כל המאוחר בפסוק זה קשה מחבירו; חרב קשה ממות, אי בעית אימא קרא ואי בעית אימא סברא. אי בעית אימא סברא, האי קא מינוול והאי לא קא מינוול. ואי בעית אימא קרא (תהלים קטז, טו) "יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו". רעב קשה מחרב, איבעית אימא סברא; האי קא מצטער והאי לא קא מצטער. איבעית אימא קרא (איכה ד, ט) "טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב". שבי קשה מכולם, דכולהו איתנהו בי.
Redeeming captives is a great mitzvah.
Rava said to Rabbah bar Mari, "From where do we know that, like the Rabbis said, redeeming captives is a great mitzvah?"
[Rabbah] responded, "It is written [in Jeremiah 15:2] "And it will be when they say to you "To where shall we depart?", and you shall say to them, "Thus said Hashem: Those [destined] for death [by natural causes depart] to death [by natural causes], and those [destined for death] by the sword [die] by the sword, and those [destined for death] by hunger [die] from hunger, and those [destined] for captivity [go into] captivity.""
And R' Yochanan said that each [calamity] in this verse is harsher than the one [before]; [death by the] sword is harsher than death [by natural causes], and [this is clear] from scripture and from logic. If you want [then you can prove it] from logic [because the one who dies by the sword] is disfigured, but [the one who dies naturally] is not disfigured. And if you prefer [then you can prove it] from scripture [because] the verse [in Psalms 116:15 says], "Honourable in the eyes of God is the [natural] death of His pious ones".
[Death from] hunger is harsher than [death by the] sword, and [this is clear] from logic; [since] the one [who dies from hunger] suffers, [while] the one [who dies from the sword] does not suffer. [And] if you prefer then [you can also prove this] from scripture, [where it says in Lamentations 4:9] "More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of the famine".
[It is clear, then, that] captivity is harsher than all of them, since all of the [other calamities] are [included] in it.
Michelle Obama, Remarks at Afternoon Hannukah Reception 2014
I want to begin with today's wonderful news. I'm told that in the Jewish tradition, one of the great mitzvahs is pidyon shvuyim. (Applause). My Hebrew is not perfect, but I get points for trying. But it describes the redemption, the freeing, of captives. And that's what we're celebrating today, because after being unjustly held in Cuba for more than five years, American Alan Gross is free. (Applause).
Letter from Noam and Aviva Shalit to their son, Gilad Shalit, Jun 27 2006
Our dear, sweet Gilad,
Mom and Dad, Yoel and Hadas are very concerned for you, want to hear [from] you and are hoping you are well and feeling all right – as good as possible in your condition.
We are hoping you can read this, and we want you to know that everything possible is being done to bring you home to Mitzpe Hila and the Galilee, as quickly as possible, to your family, your room that’s waiting for you (and to help us with the B & B rooms).
Know that we’re thinking of you all the time and hoping you’re managing somehow and surviving these difficult moments.
We know and believe that whoever is holding you also has a family and knows what we’re going through and will know to watch over you and your health.
Loving you and encouraging you,
Mom and Dad
אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן, מפני תקון העולם. ואין מבריחין את השבויין, מפני תקון העולם. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: מפני תקנת השבויין.
We do not ransom captives for more than they are worth, due to Tikkun HaOlam.
We do not help captives escape, due to Tikkun HaOlam.
[But] Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "[It is] due to the enactment of the [remaining] captives."
איבעיא להו: האי "מפני תיקון העולם", משום דוחקא דצבורא הוא, או דילמא משום דלא לגרבו ולייתו טפי? ת"ש, דלוי בר דרגא פרקא לברתיה בתליסר אלפי דינרי זהב. אמר אביי, "ומאן לימא לן דברצון חכמים עבד? דילמא שלא ברצון חכמים עבד!
"ואין מבריחין את השבויין מפני תיקון העולם. רשב"ג אומר מפני תקנת שבויין":
מאי בינייהו? איכא בינייהו, דליכא אלא חד:
They asked: [When the Mishna says] "due to Tikkun Olam", [does this mean the law was made] because of the burden on the community, or maybe because we do not [want to encourage them] to capture more people and bring them [to ransom]?
Come, hear [about an incident that will answer our question]: Levi the son of Darga ransomed his daughter for thirteen thousand golden dinars [of his own money].
Abaye said, "But who says that he acted with the consent of the Sages? Maybe he acted without the consent of the Sages!"
[The Gemara requotes the Mishna:]
"We do not help captives escape, due to Tikkun HaOlam.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: "[It is] due to the enactment of the captives.""
[The Gemara now asks:] What is the difference [in opinion between the first opinion and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's statement]? There is a difference [between their opinions, namely in a case where] there is only one [captive].
או דילמא - ...נפקא מינה אם יש לו אב עשיר או קרוב שרוצה לפדותו בדמים הרבה ולא יפילהו על הצבור:
"Or maybe" - ...and a practical difference [between these two opinions emerges] if [the captive] has a rich father or a relative who wishes to redeem them with lots of money [so the responsibility] won't fall on the community.
Barack Obama, Statement by the President on the US Government's Hostage Policy Review:
As President, I also have to consider our larger national security. I firmly believe that the United States government paying ransom to terrorists risks endangering more Americans and funding the very terrorism that we’re trying to stop. And so I firmly believe that our policy ultimately puts fewer Americans at risk.
"תרי קולי" - ...דמיה שהיא ראויה לימכר בשוק:
"Two leniences" - [This means]...her value as calculated [if she were] sold in the market
מהר"ם לובלין סימן ט"ו
אע"פ שאין בזמנינו מקח עבדים, ולפיכך אין לבני אדם מחיר, בכ"ז שמין לפי ערך שהיה שווה במקום שיש עבדים
Maharam Lublin, Section 15
Although the slave trade no longer exists, and therefore there is no price on human beings, we nonetheless appraise according to the value that (the man) is worth in a place where there are slaves, for we have not found any opinion in the commentators that the law today is different from Talmud times"
שו"ת רדב"ז חלק א סימן מ
משום דקי"ל דטעמא הוא דילמא ליגרו וליתו וימסרו עצמן לשבות מהם הרי אנו רואי ' בזמן הזה שהשבאים אין יוצאים לכתחלה בשביל ישראל אלא לכל מי שימצאו הילכך אפי' שפודין אותם יותר ממה ששוה בשוק...והנח להם לישראל שהם גומלי חסד בני גומלי חסד. והכי איכא למידק ממתני' דלא קתני אין פודין את השבויים יותר מכדי שיוויין אלא יותר מכדי דמיהן משמע דמיהן של שבויים הרגיל בכל השבויים. אבל לפדות אותם יותר מכדי שאר השבויי' של שאר לשונות עכו"ם אין ראוי דהא איכא למיחש דילמא כיון שפודין אותם יותר משאר השבויים יצאו לכתחלה לבקש יהודים וימסרו עצמם עליהם ואיכא נמי דוחקא דצבורא.
Radbaz, Part 1, Section 40
[S]ince the reason is to discourage future abductions, and we see that these days they do not seek out Jews but take anyone they can, therefore it is permissible to pay the amount paid for non-Jewish captives. Allow the Jews [to do as the are accustomed to do], for they are charitable [people] descended from charitable [people]. And this [can be seen] from a percise reeading of the Mishna; [since] it does not teach that "we do not redeem prisoners for more than their value" but "for more than their worth", which implies [that we do not redeem them] for more than the worth of regular captives.
But it is not right to redeem them for more than non-Jewish captives, for then there is the danger that they will seek out Jews who offer more to redeem their captives. Furthermore, there is then [the problem of] public impoverishment.
תנו רבנן: "נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בדמיה, פעם ראשונה פודה, מכאן ואילך, רצה פודה, רצה אינו פודה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר
The Rabbis taught, "[If a woman] was captured and [the captors] demand up to ten times her worth, the first time [this happens the husband] must redeem her. From then on, if he wants he can [choose to] redeem her, if he wants he can [choose] not to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says,
"אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהם, מפני תקון העולם". הא בכדי דמיהן פודין, אע"ג דפרקונה יותר על כתובתה. ורמינהי "נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בכתובתה, פעם ראשונה פודה, מכאן ואילך ,רצה, פודה, רצה, אינו פודה. ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר "אם היה פרקונה כנגד כתובתה, פודה, אם לאו, אינו פודה."
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל תרי קולי אית ליה:
"We do not redeem captives for more than their value, because of Tikkun HaOlam."
[Now,] this [implies that] we do redeem her for up to her value, but contrast [the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here with his opinion in the following source]: "[If a woman] was captured and they demanded up to ten times the value of her ketubah, on the first occasion he must redeem her, from then on if he wants he can [choose to] redeem her, if he wants he can [choose] not to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says "If her ransom was equal to her ketubah, he must redeem her, if not then he does not [have to] redeem her.""
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [subscribes to] two leniencies.
[Rashi: I.E. He only has to pay the ransom if it is higher than her ketubah and her value]
"והיו מבקשין ממנה עד עשרה בדמיה, פעם ראשונה פודה" -
וא"ת: והא דבעי בפ' השולח (גיטין דף מה. ושם) אהא דתנן "אין פודין את השבויין יותר מכדי דמיהן מפני תיקון העולם". אי משום דוחקא דציבורא הוא או משום דלא ליגרו בהו טפי, תפשוט מהכא דמשום דוחקא דציבורא דקתני דפודה "עד עשרה בדמיה".
וי"ל: דאפי' לטעמא דלא ליגרו וליתו טפי, לא תקינו שלא יוכל לפדות אדם את עצמו יותר מכדי דמיו, שהרי "עור בעד עור וכל אשר לאיש יתן בעד נפשו" (איוב ב). והכא אשתו כגופו.
והא דבעי התם למיפשט מהא; דלוי פרקיה לברתיה עד תליסר אלפי דינרי היינו משום דאין בתו כגופו:
"[If a woman was captured] and [the captors] demand up to ten times her worth, the first time [this happens the husband] must redeem her." -
Question: In Chapter 'Hasholeach' (Gittin p. 45a, there) it was taught that "we do not redeem captives for more than their worth because of Tikkun HaOlam". [There, we left unanswered the question of] whether [this law was made] because of the burden on the community or because of the [fear of] encouraging the captors, [but surely] we can answer on the basis of [the Gemara] here that it was because of the burden on the community, since it was taught that we redeem [the wife] for "up to ten times her worth"!
Answer: Even according to the rationale of [not wishing to] encourage the captors to kidnap more [people], they [nevertheless] did not rule that an individual cannot redeem themselves for more than their worth. [This is] because [as the verse teaches us], "Skin for skin, and a man will give up everything for his life" (Job 2[:4]). And here a woman is 'like his own body'.
And that which we asked there can be understood from here; since Levi redeemed his daughter for up to thirteen thousand dinarim because [a man's] daughter is not 'like his body'.
U.S. Government to Stop Threatening Prosecution of Hostage Families for Paying Ransom, June 23, Washington Post, Mufson. S., Goldman. A.,
The U.S. government will stop telling families of hostages taken abroad that they could face criminal prosecution if they pay ransom for the release of loved ones, an emotional issue that has arisen in recent cases of Americans captured and later beheaded by the Islamic State group.
Instead, under a new presidential policy directive and executive order, the U.S. government will work with the families, sharing classified information when necessary and even dealing directly with hostage takers in an effort to assist private families hoping to secure the release of loved ones, according to an advance copy of documents spelling out the new hostage policy.
“In short, we will not abandon families in their greatest time of need,” the new policy document says. And it said that the Justice Department “does not intend to add to families’ pain in such cases by suggesting they could face criminal prosecution.”
ת"ר: מעשה ברבי יהושע בן חנניה שהלך לכרך גדול שברומי. אמרו לו "תינוק אחד יש בבית האסורים, יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים."
הלך ועמד על פתח בית האסורים אמר (ישעיהו מב, כד) "מי נתן למשיסה יעקב וישראל לבוזזים ענה?" אותו תינוק ואמר "הלא ה'... זו...חטאנו לו, ולא אבו בדרכיו הלוך, ולא שמעו בתורתו."
אמר "מובטחני בו שמורה הוראה בישראל; העבודה שאיני זז מכאן עד שאפדנו בכל ממון שפוסקין עליו". אמרו לא זז משם עד שפדאו בממון הרבה, ולא היו ימים מועטין עד שהורה הוראה בישראל.
ומנו?
רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע.
The Rabbis taught: It once happened that Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Chananya was travelling to a great city in Rome. They said to him, "There is a baby in the prison who has beautiful eyes and a fine appearance, and his locks are arranged in curls".
[Rabbi Yehoshua] went and stood by the door of the prison, [and he] said ([quoting] Isaiah 42:24), "Who has given Jacob over as loot and Israel to the robbers?" That baby responded [quoting the continuation of the verse], "Is it not God [who punished us]...for this:...We sinned against Him, and our fathers did not go in His ways and they did not listen to His Torah".
[Rabbi Yehoshua] said, "I am certain that he will teach the law in Israel; [I swear] by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I have redeemed him for whatever [amount of] money that they demand."
They say that he did not move from there until he had redeemed [the baby] with a large [amount of] money, and it was only a short time before he was teaching the law in Israel.
And who was he?
Rabbi Yishmael the son of Elisha.
דלא ליגרבו ולייתו.
והא דתניא בפ' נערה (כתובות נב.) "נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנה עד עשרה בדמיה, פעם ראשון פודה". שאני אשתו, דהויא כגופו יותר מבתו. דהכא ועל עצמו, לא תיקנו שלא יתן כל אשר לו בעד נפשו.
ור' יהושע בן חנניא דפרקיה לההוא תינוק בממון הרבה בהניזקין (לקמן דף נח.) לפי שהיה מופלג בחכמה.
אי נמי, בשעת חורבן הבית לא שייך דלא ליגרבו.
[Tosfot quotes the Gemara:] "We do not [want to encourage them] to capture more people and bring them [to ransom]".
And it was taught in Chapter 'Naarah' (Ketuvot 52a) - "[If a woman] was captured and [the captors] demand up to ten times her worth, the first time [this happens] [the husband] must redeem her". [However, these two quotes do not contradict one another, since the law is] different for one's wife, because she is like her husband's body more so than his daughter. So here [with his wife] and for himself, they did not rule that he is not allowed to give everything he has for the sake of his life.
And [as for] Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, who redeemed a baby with a large amount of money [as we see] in Chapter 'Hanezikin' (below, page 58a), [he did that] because [the baby possessed] great wisdom.
Alternatively, during the destruction of the Temple, [the legal principle of] ''We do not [want to encourage them] to capture" was not in force.
Marginal glosses to folio 85 of the "Minhagbuch" of Worms, written in 1625, quoted by Lewysohn, "Sechzig Epitaphien," p. 36; comp. also S. Back, "R. Meïr ben Baruch," pp. 62 et seq.
R. Meïr b. Baruch was about to go abroad with his wife, his daughters, his sons-in-law, and all his family, and had proceeded as far as a city in the mountains of Lombardy, where he intended to stay until all his traveling companions had gathered about him, when suddenly the wicked Bishop of Basel passed through the city on his journey from Rome, accompanied by a baptized Jew named Kneppe []. The latter recognized Meïr and informed the bishop, who brought it about that the lord of that city, Count Meinhard of Görz, seized Meïr on the fourth of Tammuz [= June 28], 1286, and delivered him to Emperor Rudolph, who cast him into prison"
ים של שלמה, ד:סו
שמעתי על מהר”ם מרוטנבר”ק ז”ל שהיה תפוס במגדול אייגזהם[!] כמה שנים, והשר תבע מן הקהלות סך גדול, והקהלות היו רוצים לפדותו, ולא הניח, כי אמר אין פודין השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהם.
Yam Shel Shlomo, 4:66
I heard that the Maharam of Rothenberg z"l was held captive in the tower of Ensisheim for a few years. The Emperor demanded a large sum from the community, and the community wanted to redeem him, but he would not agree to it, since he said that we don't redeem captives for more than their worth.
"המוכר עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים, אין פודין אותו אבל פודין את הבנים".
משום קלקולא, וכ"ש הכא דאיכא קטלא.
[Quoting the Mishna:] "[If] someone sells himself and his children to idol-worshippers, we do not redeem him but we redeem the children"
[We redeem the children] because of the ruin [that may befall them], and a fortiori here where there is [the prospect of] murder.
כל ממון שפוסקין עליו.
כי איכא סכנת נפשות, פודין שבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן, כדאמרינן בפרק השולח (לעיל דף מז.) גבי מוכר עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים, כ"ש הכא דאיכא קטלא.
אי נמי משום דמופלג בחכמה היה:
[Tosfot quotes the Gemara:] "for whatever [amount of] money that they demand."
[He was legally allowed to do this because where] there is a threat to life, we redeem the captives for more than their value. [This is like what] we say in Chapter 'Hasholeach' (above, page 47a) about one who sells themselves and their children to idol-worshippers, [and this is true] a fortiori here where there is a murderer.
Alternatively, [he was allowed to redeem the baby for more than its worth] because [it possessed] great wisdom.
חידושי הרמב"ן מסכת גיטין דף מה עמוד א
וי"א דכל היכא דאיכא חששא דמיתה פודין אותן בכל ממון שיכולין לפדותן, ולא מסתבר דכל שבי כולהו איתנהו ביה.
Ramban, Tractate Gittin p. 45a
And there are those who say that wherever there is a fear of death, we redeem [the captive] with all the money we can [collect], but this does not seem [like] a logical [distinction], since every captive has [some threat of death].
ר"ן על הרי"ף מסכת גיטין דף כג עמוד א
הילכך בעיין הכא לא איפשיטא וי"א דאפ"ה מיפשטא מדתניא בפ' נערה שנתפתתה (דף נב א) נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנה עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן מפני תקון העולם אלמא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אע"ג דליכא דוחקא דצבורא כי התם דבעל חייב לפדותה אין פודין כי היכי דלא ניגרי בהו ופסק שם הרי"ף ז"ל כרשב"ג ונראה שפסק כן משום דסתם מתני' דהכא כותיה וליכא למימר דת"ק דהתם נמי מודה כסתמא דמתני' אלא דאיהו ורשב"ג בטעמא דתקנתא פליגי דת"ק סבר דמשום דוחקא דצבורא הוא ומשום הכי אמר דפעם ראשונה פודה אפי' עד עשרה בדמיה כיון דליכא הכא דוחקא דצבורא דהא בעל חייב לפדותה ורשב"ג סבר דמשום דלא ניגרי בהו הוא. דלא משמע הכי דמתניתין דהכא ודרשב"ג בחד לישנא מיתנו ומדטעמיה דרשב"ג כי היכי דלא ניגרו בהו משמע דטעמא דמתני' נמי משום הכי הוא ות"ק דהתם לית ליה מתני' כלל הילכך בעיין מיפשטא מההיא וכ"נ דעת הרמב"ם ז"ל שכתב בפ"ח מהלכות מתנות עניים אין פודין את השבויין ביותר על דמיהן מפני תקון העולם שלא יהיו האויבים רודפין אחריהם לשבותן וכי תימא אם כן תקשי לן ההיא דאמרינן לקמן בפ' הניזקין (דף נח א) דר' יהושע פדה לאותו תינוק בממון הרבה יש לומר דמפני שהכיר בו שהוא תלמיד ותיק עשה כן שתלמיד חכם אין לנו כיוצא בו ולא חיישינן לפדיונו כלל אלא פודין אותו בכל מה שיכולין לפדותו וקודם לפדות למלך ישראל כדאיתא בהוריות (דף יג א) ול"נ דבעיין מהתם לא מפשטא דכיון דחיישי' לדוחקא דצבורא כ"ש דאיכא למיחש לדוחקא דבעל שלא לחייבו בתקנת חכמים לפדותה יותר מכדי דמיה ואם איתא דהוה מיפשטא מההיא ברייתא הוה להו בגמ' לאיתויי הכא. אבל נראה שדעת הראשונים ז"ל היה דכיון דלא מיפשטא ואיכא למיחש לתקלה אין פודין דשב ואל תעשה שאני ועוד דכיון דבגמ' פשט לה מההיא דלוי בר דרגא לא שבקינן פשטין דתלמודא משום ספיקא דאביי דאמר מאן לימא לן:
Ran on the Rif Tractate Gittin p. 23a
"We do not redeem captives for more than their worth because of Tikkun HaOlam. They asked what [is meant by[ 'because of Tikkun HaOlam']? "[Does it mean] because of the burden on the community" [i.e.] that we do not want to burden the community and bring them to poverty on account of the [captives]? Or maybe that we do not [want to] encourage them to kidnap more [people]. i.e. that the idol-worshippers will not exert themselves to kidnap many [Jews] in order to sell them expensively. And the practical difference [between these two options emerges in a situation] where there is a rich father or a relative who wants to redeem [the individual] with a lot of money [so that the burden] won't fall upon the community.
And they said
"Come, hear [about an incident that will answer our question]: Levi the son of Darga ransomed his daughter for thirteen thousand golden dinars [of his own money]."
Therefore the Mishna's rationale is [clearly] the burden on the community.
But Abaye rejects [this argument, and responds,] "Who says that he acted with the consent of the Sages? Maybe he acted without the consent of the Sages!"
Therefore this question was not answered.
And there are those who say that one can nevertheless answer [this question] from the Baraita in Chapter Naarah Shenitpattatah (Ketuvot p. 52a): "The Rabbis taught, "[If a woman] was captured and [the captors] demand up to ten times her worth, the first time [this happens the husband] must redeem her. From then on, if he wants he can [choose to] redeem her, if he wants he can [choose] not to redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, "We do not redeem captives for more than their value, because of Tikkun HaOlam."
Therefore [it is clear that] for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even though there is no burden to the community [in this case] because the husband is obligated to pay, [nevertheless] we do not redeem [for more than her value, clearly] because of [not wanting] to encourage [the kidnappers].
And the Rif rules there (Paragraph 241) like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and it seems like he ruled like this because ...
Question: If so then we can challenge [this logic based on] what was said below in Chapter Hanezikin (p. 58a), [where it records that] Rabbi Yehoshua redeemed a baby with a large amount of money. Answer: [This seems to have been acceptable] because he recognised that he was a sharp student; [and] for a great scholar there is no-ne like them, and we are not worried at all when redeeming them about encouraging [more kidnappings], rather we redeem them with everything we have to redeem them, and [we redeem them even] before a King of Israel, as we see in Tractate Horayot (p. 13a)...
A letter asking for assistance in redeeming captives, written in Fustat, found in the Cairo Genizah, Cambridge Digital Library:
Cohen. M., Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, p. 112
"[N]ews came that o[ther] captives had arrived. We could [not] believe it until the slaves of one of the Arabs named Yabqi ibn Abi Razin arrived, accompanied by seven Jewish m[erchants] from the town of Attaleia [modern Antalya in the south of Asia Minor], whom Yaqbi brought to the court of the elder, our mighty Nethanel ha-Kohen, [may the] M[erciful] w[atch over him] b. El'azar. When we saw them, our grief grew and our wailing intensified and we wept about the severe day [of judgement]. In anguish we said, "Woe is us, how our iniquities have caused us to be dispersed to the four corners [of the earth] and brought as captives from place to place."
Cohen. M., Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, pp. 109-111
[T]he normal price charged for one captive in the classical Geniza period was 33 1/3 dinars, enough money to support a middling family for more than a year...The figure of 33 1/3 dinars, we must hasten to add, was not an inflated sum charged Jews because of their renowned readiness to save the life of a coreligionist. It was the going rate for captives in general, Muslims and Christians as well as Jews...Despite these dire circumstances, the captives refused to accede to the inflated price that the physical abuse was meant to coerce. In keeping with Jewish law they argued, presumably with the pirates themselves, that they were prohibited from complying lest they encourage such extortion in the future.
Cohen. M., Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, pp. 119-120
"I inform the holy congregation - may God enhance its splendor - that I am a woman who was taken captive in the land of Israel. I arrived here this week from Sunbat "naked," with no blanket and no sleeping carpet. With me is a little boy and I have no means of sustenance. I beseech now God the exalted and beseech the congregation - may you be blessed - to do with me what is proper to be done with any wayfarer. May the Holy One, may He be praised, repay you many times and be your help so that you shall never be driven from your homes. And may He bring the Redeemer in your days, Amen."
Cohen. M., Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, p. 113
In a seemingly strange exchange of gifts, perhaps a confidence-building gesture or a play to avoid the appearance of overpaying a ransom, the pirate's agent delivered one captive as a "gift" to the same notable, Nethanel ha-Kohen, and in turn, Nethanel gave the man one and a half timmes the captive's normal value as a "gift." For the second captive, however, he paid the standard price of 33 1/3 dinars.
JTS MS 825.7 cited and translated in Cohen. M., Poverty and Charity in the Jewish Community of Medieval Egypt, p. 116
"Act upon it in the same way as we, all the judges and the eleders and the student[s], have acted, going around, night and day, urging people in the synagoguges, the markets, and at the doors of dwellings, in order to collect something towards this great goal. Having contributed as much as we ourselves are able, you, too, should do for them [the captives] as fits your generosity and your [renown] as seekers of merit [through] kindness and love. Write to tell us the total amount you collect on their behalf, through God the ex[alted's] compassion and your own. Exert yourselves to collect it quickly and send it to us with our aforementioned dignitary, R' Aharon Ha-Levi."
(י) פדיון שבויים קודם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותן, ואין לך מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבויים, שהשבוי הרי הוא בכלל הרעבים והצמאים והערומים, ועומד בסכנת נפשות, והמעלים עיניו מפדיונו, הרי זה עובר על "לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך" ועל "לא תעמוד על דם רעך" ועל "לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך" ובטל מצות "פתח תפתח את ידך לו" ומצות "וחי אחיך עמך" "ואהבת לרעך כמוך" "והצל לקוחים למות" והרבה דברים כאלו. ואין לך מצוה רבה כפדיון שבויים.
(יב) אין פודין את השבויים ביתר על דמיהן מפני תקון העולם, שלא יהיו האויבים רודפין אחריהם לשבותם. ואין מבריחין את השבויים מפני תקון העולם, שלא יהיו האויבים מכבידין עליהן את העול ומרבים בשמירתן.
(10) The redemption of captives receives priority over sustaining the poor and providing them with clothing. [Indeed,] there is no greater mitzvah than the redemption of captives. For a captive is among those who are hungry, thirsty, and unclothed and he is in mortal peril. If someone pays no attention to his redemption, he violates the negative commanadments: "Do not harden your heart or close your hand" (Deuteronomy 15:7), "Do not stand by when the blood of your neighbour is in danger" (Leviticus 19:16), and "He shall not oppress him with exhausting work in your presence (ibid. 25:53). And he has negated the observance of the positive commandments: "You shall certainly open up your hand to him" (Deuteronomy 15:8), "And your brother shall live with you" (ibid. 19:18), "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18), "Save those who are taken for death" (Proverbs 24:11), and many other decrees of this nature. There is no mitzvah as great as the redemption of captives.
(12) We do not redeem captives for more than their worth because of Tikkun HaOlam, so that [our] enemies will not pursue people to kidnap them. And we do not assist captives in escaping because of Tikkun HaOlam, so that enemies will not oppress captives harshly and be very strict when guarding them.
(יט) אין מחייבין את הבעל לפדות את אשתו יותר על דמיה אלא כמה שהיא שוה כשאר השבויות. היו דמיה יותר על כדי כתובתה ואמר הריני מגרשה וזו כתובתה ותלך ותפדה את עצמה אין שומעין לו אלא כופין אותו ופודה אותה אפילו היו דמיה עד עשרה בכתובתה ואפילו אין לו אלא כדי פדיונה. בד"א בפעם ראשונה אבל אם פדאה ונשבית פעם שנייה ורצה לגרשה הרי זה מגרשה ונותן כתובה והיא תפדה את עצמה.
A husband is not obligated to redeem his wife for more than her worth. Instead, [the laws applying] to her [redemption] are the same as with regard to others held captive.
When her value exceeds [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, [if] her husband says, "I will divorce her, here is [the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah. Let her redeem herself," we do not listen to him. Instead, [if necessary,] he should be compelled to redeem her, even if her value is ten times [the value of] her ketubah - even if it is equivalent to all of his assets.
When does the above apply? On the first occasion [that she is held captive]. If, however, he redeems her and she is taken captive again, if he desires to divorce her he may divorce her, pay [her the money due her by virtue of] her ketubah, and [then] she must redeem herself.
(א) פדיון שבוים קודם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותן, ואין מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבויים. הילכך, לכל דבר מצוה שגבו מעות בשבילו יכוין לשנותן לפדיון שבויים. ואפי' אם גבו לצורך בנין בית הכנסת, ואפילו אם קנו העצים והאבנים והקצום לצורך הבנין שאסור למוכרו בשביל מצוה אחרת מותר למוכרם לצורך פדיון שבויים אבל אם בנאוה כבר לא ימכרו אותם אין פודין השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהן מפני תיקון העולם שלא יהו האויבים מוסרין עצמם עליהם לשבותם ואפילו אם קרובים רוצים לפדותו ביותר מכדי דמיו אין מניחין אותן אבל אדם יכול לפדות את עצמו בכל מה שירצה וכן לאשתו שהיא כגופו וכן לת"ח או אפי' אין ת"ח ורואין אותו מצליח שאפשר שיהיה ת"ח יכולין לפדותו בכל מה שיכלו: אין מבריחין השבויים (בלא עולה) כדי שלא יהו האויבים מכבידי' עולם עליהם ויוסיפו שמירה על שמירתם: מי שמכר עצמו לנכרים או שלוה מהם ושבו אותו בהלואתו פעם ראשונה ושנייה פודין אותו שלישית אין פודין אותו אבל פודין את הבנים לאחר מיתת אביהם ואם בקשו להורגו פודין אותו מיד אפי' אחר כמה פעמים עבד שנשבה הואיל וטבל לשם עבדות וקבל עליו מצות פודין אותו כישראל שנשבה שבוי שהמיר אפי' למצוה אחת כגון שאוכל נבילות להכעיס וכיוצא בו אסור לפדותו פודין האשה קודם לאיש ואם נתבעו שניהם לדבר עבירה מקדימין האיש לפי שאין דרכו לכך:
The redemption of captives precedes sustaining the poor and clothing them, and there is no mitzvah as great as redeeming captives. Therefore, [if] one has designated money for any mitzvah, they can reassign it in order to redeem captives. And even if they have designated it for the construction of a synagogue, and even if they have bought the wood and stones and ketzum for construction, [in which case] one is not allowed to sell them for the purposes of another mitzvah, [one is nevertheless] allowed to sell them in order to redeem captives. But if one has already built [the synagogue] then they should not sell it.
We do not redeem captives for more than their worth because of Tikkun HaOlam, so that our enemies will not exert themselves to kidnap [Jews]. And even if one’s relatives want to redeem him for more than his value, we do not let them, but a man is allowed to redeem himself with everything he owns, and so too for his wife since she is like his own body. And so too for a great scholar, or even someone who is not a great scholar but it is apparent that if you rescue them it is possible that they will become a great scholar, you [are also allowed to] redeem such an individual with everything you own:…
(א) בפדיונה, כיצד? נשבית, חייב לפדותה ואינו יכול לומר "הרי זה גיטך וכתובתיך ותפדה את עצמך". ואפי' אם יאמר "איני פודך ולא אטול פירותיך", אין שומעין לו, אע"פ שתקנו פרקונה תחת פירות שאוכל משלה, אפי"ה אין שומעין לו. אלא צריך לפדותה אפילו אם פדיונה עולה יותר מכתובתה, ואפילו יותר מכדי שויה. אבל רב אלפס פוסק שאינו חייב לפדותה אלא בכדי שויה, וכ"כ הרמב"ם. וא"א הרא"ש ז"ל כתב כסברא הראשונה. ואינו חייב לפדותה אלא פעם אחת; נשבית שנית אינו חייב לפדותה. וי"א שאינו חייב לפדותה בפעם ב' ביותר מכדי כתובתה, אבל עד כדי כתובתה חייב גם בפעם ב'. ולא נהירא לא"א הרא"ש ז"ל, אלא אינו חייב בפדיונה כלל בפעם השנית. והרמב"ם כתב נשבית פעם שנית ורצה לגרשה, ה"ז מגרש ויתן כתובה והיא תפדה את עצמה.
[With regards to] redeeming [one's kidnapped wife], how [should one act]? If she has been captured, one is obligated to redeem her and cannot say "Here is your divorce and ketubah, and redeem yourself". And even if he says "I will not redeem you and I will not take your produce", we do not listen to him, even though we established that [his responsibility to] redeem her is partnered with the produce that he gains from her, in spite of this we do not listen to him. Instead, he must redeem her even if her ransom price is more than the ketubah, and even if it is more than her worth.
However, Rav Alfas rules that he is not obligated to redeem her [for more than] her value, and this is [also] what the Rambam writes. But my father and master, the Rosh Z"L, writes in accordance with the former opinion.
And he is only obligated to redeem her once, [but if] she was kidnapped on a second [occasion] he is not obligated to redeem her. And there are those who say that he is not obligated to redeem her on the second occasion for more than the value of the ketubah, but [if the captors demanded a value] up to that of the ketubah, he is also obligated [to redeem her] for a second time.
But this was not clear to my father and master the Rosh Z"L, [and he ruled that] he is not obligated under any circumstances on the second occasion. And the Rambam writes that if she is kidnapped for a second time and he wants to divorce her, she is divorced, he gives her the ketubah and she can free herself.
(א) פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים קוֹדֵם לְפַרְנָסַת עֲנִיִּים וְלִכְסוּתָן. וְאֵין מִצְוָה גְדוֹלָה כְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. הִלְכָּךְ, לְכָל דְּבַר מִצְוָה שֶׁגָבוּ מָעוֹת בִּשְׁבִילוֹ, יְכוֹלִים לְשַׁנּוֹתָן לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים...
(ג) כָּל רֶגַע שֶׁמְּאַחֵר לִפְדּוֹת הַשְּׁבוּיִים, הֵיכָא דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְהַקְדִּים, הָוֵי כְּאִלוּ שׁוֹפֵךְ דָּמִים.
(ד) אֵין פּוֹדִין הַשְּׁבוּיִים יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי תִּקוּן הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים מוֹסְרִים עַצְמָם עֲלֵיהֶם לִשְׁבּוֹתָם. אֲבָל אָדָם יָכוֹל לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. וְכֵן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם, אוֹ אֲפִלוּ אֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, אֶלָא שֶׁהוּא תַּלְמִיד חָרִיף וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם גָדוֹל, פּוֹדִים אוֹתוֹ בְּדָמִים מְרֻבִּים. וְאִם אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּאַחֵר דָּמִי אוֹ לֹא, עַיֵּן בַּטּוּר אֶבֶן הָעֵזְר סי' ע''ח.
(1) The redeeming of captives takes precedence to sustaining the poor and clothing them. And there is no mitzvah as great as redeeming captives. Therefore, if one has designated money for any [other] mitzvah, they can redirect it to redeeming captives...
(3) Every moment that one delays redeeming captives, where it is possible to do it sooner, it is as if one is spilling blood.
(4) We do not redeem captives for more than their worth because of Tikkun Olam, so that our enemies will not endanger themselves to kidnap [us]. But an individual can redeem themselves if they wish to. And for a great scholar, or even one who is not a great scholar but is a sharp student with the potential to be a great individual, we redeem them with a large amount of money.
Rema: And with regards to whether a wife is like any other individual or not, see the Tur, Even HaEzer, Siman 78.
פתחי תשובה יורה דעה סימן רנב ס"ק ד
(ד) יותר - עי' באשל אברהם בשם שו"ת נחלה ליהושע דבמקום דאיכא למיחש לקטלא פודין, ועיין בתשובת יד אליהו סימן מ"ג שלא כתב כן, אלא דאפילו בעומד להריגה אין פודין יותר מכדי דמיו, דתירוצא קמא שבתוספת פרק הניזקין לא קאי אליבא דאמת ע"ש. וכ"כ בתשובת מהר"ם לובלין סימן ט"ו בא' שהיה נתפס בתפיסה בטענה שזינה עם זונה אם צריכין להפריז עליו מעות הרבה להציל נפשו, והשיב שע"פ הדין אין צריכין שאין פודין את השבוים יותר מכ"ד, אך מפני חילול השם יפזרו עליו ממון הרבה ע"ש. ועיין בספר בה"י סק"ב כ' בשם הגאון מהרש"ק שנעלם ממנו דברי תוספת בגיטין הנ"ל דאם ביקשו להרגו פודין, ע"ש. (ומ"ש הב"י שם ראיה לזה דהרי המעלים עיניו מפדיון שבוים עובר על לא תעמוד על דם רעך. והרי כ' בא"ח סוס"י תרנ"ו דבמצות לא תעשה חייב ליתן כל ממונו ע"ש לאו ראיה היא לפמ"ש לעיל סי' קנ"ז ס"ק ד' בשם הפמ"ג ו תשו' חות יאיר דדוקא בלא תעשה שיש בו מעשה, ע"ש). אך בתשובת כנסת יחזקאל סימן ל"ח השיג עליהם משום דהאי תירוצא דסכנת נפשות לא שייך אלא אם טעמא משום דוחקא דצבורא אבל לטעמא דלא לגרבי הסברא להיפך דאם בס"נ פודין ירצו להרוג את השבוים כדי שיפדו יותר מכ"ד וגם יגרבו וירצו להרוג וא"כ לפמ"ש הרמב"ם והש"ע טעמא דלא לגרבי שפיר כתב מהר"ם לובלין שאין הקהל צריכין מטעם א"פ את השבוים אף בס"נ יותר מכ"ד. ומה שכתב דמשום חילול השם יש להקהל לפדות היינו לפי דהרי"ף והרא"ש סברי דבעיין לא איפשטא אם הטעם משום דוחקא דצבורא או דלא לגרבי להכי י"ל קים לן כוותייהו. וכתב עוד דכל זה במדינות אחרות שנותנים עין בממון ושייך טעמא דגרבי אבל במדינות אלו אשר תלי"ת לא כן הוא צריך עיון רב אם אין חייבים לפדות נפש מישראל בס"נ בכל ממון וע"כ פסק למעשה באחד שישב בחצר המטרה קרוב לס"נ דצריכין לפזר עליו מעות אך הקרובים יתנו הערכה כפי שישימו עליהם הפרנסים והמותר מקופת הקהל עיין שם:
Pitchei Teshuva, Yoreh Deah, Section 252:4
More - See the Eshel Avraham in the name of the Responsa Nahala l'Yehoshua, that where there there is a possibility of death, we do redeem [for more than their worth]. And see Responsa Yad Eliyahu chapter 43 who did not write so, but instead even if the captive is going to be killed, we still do not redeem for more than their worth...And likewise is written in the Responsa of the Maharam of Lublin chapter 15 regarding one who was caught on a charge of cavorting with a prostitute, whether they need to spend a lot of money to save him. And he responded that by strict law, they need not do so, but because of the defamation of God's Name, they should spend a lot of money on him. And see in the Sefer Beit Hillel Section 102 [where] he writes in the name of the Gaon Maharshak that the aforementioned words of Tosfot in Gittin that if they are consider killing [the captive] we redeem him are strange, see there. And that which the Beit Yosef writes there is a proof for this since [he asserts that] one who averts their eyes from the redemption of a captive transgresses the [prohibition of] “Do not stand on the blood of your friend”. And it is written in Orach Chaim at the end of Section 656 that with a negative mitzvah one is obligated to give all their money, see there. But in the Responsa Knesset Yehezqel chapter 38 he commented that the answer of the mortal danger only relates to the reasoning of the burden on the community. But for the reasoning of not causing more captivity entails the opposite: if we redeem for mortal danger they will want to kill the captives in order to get more money. And therefore according to what both Maimonides and the Shulhan Arukh wrote the reasoning of so that they will not capture more, the Maharam Lublin appropriately rules that the community need not, by law, spend more than the worth of the captive to redeem him. And that which he wrote about the necessity to redeem in order to avoid defamation of God's Name, this is because according to the Rif and the Rosh this is a question that has not been answered whether it is because of the burden on the community or in order to avoid further capture, and therefore the law is like them. And he wrote further that this is only in other states where their eye is on money and therefore more capture will be caused, but in these states, that are thank God, not like this, there must be great investigation about whether one should redeem a Jewish person in a case of mortal danger using any money available. And therefore, he ruled practically regarding a person who was sitting in jail close to mortal danger that they must spend money on him. But the relatives should give whatever the community leaders deem proper, and the rest should come from the communal pot.
Shach 252:4:
“We do not redeem captives [for more than their worth]”: This implies that even relatives are not redeemed for more than their worth because of Tikkun HaOlam, and this is also implied by the conclusion [of the Tur where he writes] “but one can redeem themselves”, which implies that [one is] only [allowed to overpay] for oneself. However, the Bach rules that one is allowed to redeem for more than their worth whether it is one’s daughter or relatives [vechol adam], and we do not protest since there is no burden on the community [in this case]. And a fortiori we do not protest if he redeems his wife, but we [also] do not obligate him to redeem his wife for more than her value, and this is the amah of the matter:.
Religious Public: Include Rabbis in Shalit Deal Debates, YNet News, Rabbi Levi Brackman, Dr. Ruchama Weiss, 07.10.09
Examining division of opinions within religious sectors, the survey revealed that seculars reject out of hand the inclusion of rabbis in such decisions (78%), the conservatives are divided to those who oppose such an option (43%) and those in support of including the IDF chief rabbi as a decision maker (41%), and the religious sector is in favor of incorporating the IDF chief rabbi (47%) or other rabbis (47%) in the decision-making process. Common view among the ultra-Orthodox community is that that rabbinical establishment's stance should be taken into account (83%).
Poll: 79% of Israelis Support Shalit Deal, YNet News, Yedioth Ahronoth, 17.10.11
The vast majority of Israel's citizens are in favour of the deal securing the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,027 terrorists, a public opinion poll commissioned by Yedioth Ahronoth shows.
Asked whether they were in favour of Shalit's release in exchange for 1,027 terrorists, 79% of the respondents said yes and only 14% said no...
Among male respondents, 74% support the deal and 19% oppose it, while 86% of the women support it and only 5% are against it...
Examining division of opinions within religious sectors, the survey revealed that seculars reject out of hand the inclusion of rabbis in such decisions (78%), the conservatives are divided to those who oppose such an option (43%) and those in support of including the IDF chief rabbi as a decision maker (41%), and the religious sector is in favor of incorporating the IDF chief rabbi (47%) or other rabbis (47%) in the decision-making process. Common view among the ultra-Orthodox community is that that rabbinical establishment's stance should be taken into account (83%).
Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaLevi Kilav, Techumim 4 (1983)
Furthermore, it seems that nowadays, when terrorists declare their desire to kidnap and murder Jews and, in fact, act upon these declarations without any compassion for the victims whether me, women or children, that releasing terrorists is actual danger and is therefore forbidden. This is true even according to those who maintain that [the prohibition] is based on “the burden imposed on the community”, since the danger [here] is tangible and arises immediately upon their release. Added to this is the fact that they join the forces that battle us from their countries with long range weaponry and thus represent a threat even if they don’t actually penetrate our borders. It therefore seems that it is forbidden to release terrorists and murderers in exchange for captives, not just an exchange of many [terrorists for one [Jew], but even one for one, because of the future danger.
Pileggi, T., 2015. Palestinians freed in Shalit deal killed 6 Israelis since 2014. Times of Israel, 20 July
The suspected mastermind behind a deadly West Bank terror attack last month was among 1,027 Palestinian inmates freed by Israel in exchange for the release from Gaza of the captured Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit in 2011. On Sunday, the Shin Bet announced it had detained four members of a seven-member Hamas cell who allegedly opened fire on a car near the settlement of Shvut Rachel in June, killing Malachy Rosenfeld, 25, and wounding three others.
Rosenfeld was the sixth Israeli to be killed in attacks carried out or planned by Palestinians released under the Shalit deal since April 2014.
ר' שאול ישראלי, חוות בנימין, כרך א, סימן טז:
לא קיימת שום הגבלה בפדיון השבויים ואעפ"י שקיים החשש "דלא ליגררו ולייתי", אין דוחים ודאי סכנה מפני ספק סכנה.
Rav Shaul Yisraeli, Chavat Binyamin, Section 16:9:
In every situation of a tangible danger no restriction was established for the redemption of captives, and even though we established a concern for "not encouraging [the captors] to kidnap", we do not ignore a certain danger because of an uncertain danger.
Rabbi Chaim David HaLevy, Aseh Lecha Rav, 7:53:
The terror organisations always do all they can to harm Jews and to kidnap soldiers and citizens - any luck of success is due to our security apparatus - the freeing of several hundred terrorists cannot be said to pose any new, previously non-existent danger.
R' Kilav, "Releasing Terrorists," in Crossroads: Halacha and the Modern World, vol. 1 (Gush Etzion, Israel: Zomet Institute, 1987), 201-210
If the prohibition is based on the need to discourage future abductions, it will be prohibited to release terrorists, as experience has shown that this will surely encourage more abductions in the future.
Bloomfield, A., 2011. Palestinian militants vow to abduct a 'new Gilad Shalit'. The Telegraph, 18 Oct
The Popular Resistance Committees, the Hamas-dominated militant coalition that captured Sgt Maj Shalit, vowed that it would seize another Israeli soldier to force Israel to release the 6,000 Palestinian prisoners that remain in its custody.
"We are going to capture another soldier and cleanse all the Israeli jails of our prisoners," said a masked spokesman using the nom de guerre Abu Mujahid.
For many Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, the release of so many prisoners for one man is evidence that Israel responds only to threats, making the path of peaceful negotiation espoused by Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, and his moderate Fatah party nonsensical. "The people want a new Gilad, the people want a new Gilad," chanted the tens of thousands who gathered at a Hamas-sponsored rally in Gaza city to welcome home the freed prisoners.
(See 'Hamas Video: Training to Kidnap an Israeli Soldier': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0zHyTBxwoU)
הרב צבי שכטר, "בגדרי המדינה ומלחמותיה", בעקבי הצאן, עמ' רו-רז
בסוף הקיץ בשנת תש"ל, תפסו טרוריסטים ערבים שני אווירונים מלאים יהודים תיירים בחזרתם מארץ ישראל לאמריקה, והוליכום לירדן, והיו מאיימים להרוג את כולם. ובין השבויים היה הגאון הרב יצחק הוטנר זצ"ל ראש ישיבת רבנו חיים ברלין (בארה"ב). ועלה אז על לב חבר מתלמידיו העשירים להגיש כמה מיליוני דולרים למשרד החוץ של ארה"ב שיגישו הון זה לערבים הטרוריסטיים על מנת שישחררו את רבם...ובדברי התוספות שם (ד"ה דלא) דבשבוי המופלג בחכמה מותר לפדותו ביתר מכדי דמיו. והיו מן הרבנים אז שהיו סבורים לומר שאף הרב יצחק הוטנר היה דינו כן כתלמיד חכם מופלג, ואשר על כן יש לפדותו אפילו ביתר מכדי דמיו. וטען אז כנגדם הרב יעקב קמינצקי ז"ל דאין החשבון הזה צודק כלל. דכל הך דינא [=שכל הדין הזה] דפדיון שבויים ליתא [=אינו] אלא בשעת שלום, אבל בשעת מלחמה אי אפשר לומר שמחויבים להפסיק מללחום על מנת לפדות את השבויים בממון. שהרי על ידי כן נמצינו מסייעים לאויב באמצע המלחמה, כי על ידי מתן הכספים הגדולים לאויב הלא יוכלו לחזק עוד יותר את מצבם במלחמה.
Rav Tzvi Schachter, "The boundaries of the state and its wars", Beikvei HaTzon, pp. 206-208
At the end of the Summer in 5730 [1970], Arab terrorists seized two planes filled with Jewish tourists returning from Israel to America, and took them to Jordan, and threatened to kill them all. And amongst the captives was the Gaon HaRav Yitzchak Hutner (of blessed memory), the head of the Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin (in the United States). And so the rich students to collect several million dollars outside the United Statesto hand over this fortune to the Arab terrorists on condition that they release the Rabbi...And [according to] what Tosfot writes there (Starting with the words "We do not"), [in the case of] a captive who [possesses] great wisdom, it is permissible to redeem them for more than their worth.
And there were some Rabbis who thought that this law was applicable to HaRav Yitzchak Hutner as a great scholar, and that he should therefore be redeemed for more than his worth. But HaRav Yaacov Kaminetzky argued that this law was not applicable at all [in this case]. [This was because the laws regarding] the redemption of captives are only [applicable] at a time of peace, but at a time of war it is impossible to say that we are obligated to stop fighting on condition that we redeem the prisoners with money.. [Rather, one cannot redeem captives in this situation] because then we would be helping our enemies in the middle of the war, since this large monetary gift to our enemies would allow them to further strengthen their position in the war.
הרב יובל שרלו, אתיקה יהודית (כה): שחרור שבויים
ההשפעה המוראלית על הצבא עלולה להיות משמעותית ביותר. בשעה שיידע חייל כי לא נעשה הכל כדי לשחררו - כולל נכונות לשחרר רוצחים בתמורה להשבתו - תיפגע המוטיבציה שלו להילחם.
R' Yuval Sherlow, Jewish Ethics (25): Redeeming Captives
The impact on the morale of the army could be significant. Once a soldier knows that [the state] will not do everything it can to free him - including a willingness to release murderers in exchange for his freedom - it will diminish his motivation to fight.
Counter-Terror Soldiers Protest Shalit Deal, Khan. G., 14 Oct 2011, Israel National News
Active duty and reserve soldiers from elite counter-terrorism units who risked their lives during previous missions to capture terrorists submitted a petition to the Netanyahu government protesting the wholesale release of terrorists in exchange for the release of kidnapped Gilad Shalit after six years in Hamas captivity.
The organizers write, "We, soldiers past and present, vehemently oppose return of terrorists to their homes, which undermines years of work and raises the overall risk of soldiers being killed in the line of duty,
"We are very hurt by the cabinet's attitude on this matter, and the next time we soldiers are asked to stop terrorists again we will have to think twice about whether it is worth risking our lives to capture killers who will only be released again We the undersigned demand that the State of Israel not release murderers we will only have to risk our lives yet again to capture later in our service,
"We note, that according to the sequence of the deal to release Gilad Shalit, which was revealed today, 450 murderers with blood on their hands will be released, in addition to 550 other prisoners, for the release of one kidnapped soldier."
ר' שאול ישראלי, חוות בנימין, כרך א, סימן טז:
ועולה מהדברים האמורים שאם למשל אדם יבטיח את עצמו בחברת ביטוח תמורת תשלום שמשלם לה שבמקרה של שבי יפדוהו בדמים מרובים, מאחר שבכגון זה החיוב של החברה הוא כלפי האדם שהבטיח את עצמו בה, והם אינם אלא עושים את שליחותו, רשאים הם ואף חייבים לפדותו בכל ממון שהוא, כפי שחייבו את עצמם כלפיו תמורת התשלום ששילם להם עבור התחייבותם...
ועל פי זה נראה שמנקודת מבט זו, יש לראות את חובת המדינה בפדיון שבויי המלחמה. שכיוון שאלה יצאו למלחמה בשליחות המדינה ומטעמה להגנת העם היושב בציון, הרי קיימת ועומדת התחייבות בלתי כתובה אבל מובנת מאליה, שכל טצדקי [תחבולות] שיש בידי המדינה לעשות (בגבולות סבירים שאינם פוגעים בביטחונה הכלכלי) כדי לפדותם במקרה שיפלו בשבי. וכשם שקיימת התחייבות מעין זו לדאוג לרפואתם והבראתם במקרה של פציעה ונכות, וכן לדאוג למשפחותיהם במקרה של היפגעם ח"ו במלחמה. כן לא נופל מזה החיוב לנקוט כל פעולה שהיא לשם הוצאתם מן השבי.
וכיון שמה שהמדינה יכולה לעשות בזה הוא מכוח החיוב שקבלה על עצמה תמורת השירות שלהם, הרי אין זה אלא כאילו הם פודים את עצמם, שבזה כמבואר לעיל לא קיימת שום הגבלה, ולא שייך בזה התקנה 'שאין פודים את השבויים יתר על כדי דמיהם'.
Rav Shaul Yisraeli, Chavat Binyamin, Section 16:7:
If a person would, for example, take out insurance with an insurance company, in exchange for a premium paid by him, that in the event he is taken captive he will be redeemed for a large sum of money; since an obligation would then be owed by the insurance company to the insured person, and they are merely his agents in this regard, they are entitled and even obligated to redeem him at any cost, in accordance with their undertaking to him… The Rabbis’ restriction against redeeming captives for greater than their value does not prevent this; because [as we have seen] a person is allowed to redeem himself at any cost. And the State’s obligation to redeem those taken captive in time of battle, must also be viewed in this light. Since our soldiers have gone out to fight as an extension [shaliach] of the State and on its behalf, in defense of the people who dwells in Zion, there exists an unwritten but implicitly understood undertaking that the State will utilize all means at its disposal (within reasonable limits which do not detrimentally affect its overall security) to redeem them in the event that they should fall into captivity...And because the State’s ability to do all this derives from the obligation it accepted upon itself in exchange for their IDF service, it as if they were redeeming themselves, concerning which no limitation exists, such that the rule of ‘not redeeming captives for more than their value’ does not apply.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Chapters Six & Seven:
"the total alienation of each associate with all of his rights to the whole community... For if individuals were left some rights, then, since there would be no common superior who might adjudicate between them and the public, each, being judge in his own case on some issue, would soon claim to be so on all, the state of nature would subsist and the association necessarily become tyrannical or empty. Finally, each, by giving himself to all, gives himself to no one, and since there is no associate over whom one does not acquire the same right as one grants him over oneself, one gains the equivalent of all one loses, and more force to preserve what one has...Each of us puts his person and his full power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole...this act of association produces a moral and collective body made up of as many members as the assembly has voices, and which receives by this same act its unity, its common self, its life and its will. The public person thus formed by the union...
...the act of association involves a reciprocal engagement between the public and private individuals, and...each individual, by contracting, so to speak, with himself, finds himself engaged in a two-fold relation: namely, as member of the Sovereign toward private individuals, and as a member of the State toward the Sovereign...Now the Sovereign, since it is formed entirely of the individuals who make it up, has not and cannot have any interests contrary to theirs"