בדפים הקודמים עיינו במצוות פדיון שבויים ובמקרים בהם אמרו חז"ל שלא פודים את השבויים - אם השובים דורשים יותר מכדי דמיהם, ושלא להבריח את השבויים מבלי לפדותם.
בדף הבא נשאל האם הגבלות אלו רלוונטיות גם לימינו.
נפתח בסיפור שראינו כבר בדף 6:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה שֶׁהָלַךְ לִכְרַךְ גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּרוֹמִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תִּינוֹק אֶחָד יֵשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. הָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, אָמַר: ״מִי נָתַן לִמְשִׁיסָּה יַעֲקֹב וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְבוֹזְזִים״? עָנָה אוֹתוֹ תִּינוֹק וְאָמַר: ״הֲלֹא ה׳ זוּ חָטָאנוּ לוֹ וְלֹא אָבוּ בִדְרָכָיו הָלוֹךְ וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּתוֹרָתוֹ״. אָמַר: מוּבְטְחַנִי בּוֹ שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָעֲבוֹדָה! שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁאֶפְדֶּנּוּ בְּכׇל מָמוֹן שֶׁפּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ בְּמָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִין עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע.
of phylactery boxes were found on the heads of those killed in Beitar. Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, says: There were found three large baskets each holding forty se’a of phylactery boxes. And it was taught in a baraita: There were forty large baskets each holding three se’a. The Gemara notes: And these Sages do not disagree: This Sage is referring to phylacteries of the head, whereas this Sage is referring to phylacteries of the arm, for owing to the different manners in which they are fashioned, they are also different in size. Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9). § The verse states: “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold” (Lamentations 4:2). What is the meaning of the expression “comparable to fine gold”? If we say that it means they were covered in fine gold [piza], this is difficult; but didn’t the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Two istira weights of fine gold came down into the world, one in Rome and one in all the rest of the world. If so, it is certainly impossible to cover the inhabitants of Jerusalem with fine gold, as there is not enough of it in the entire world to do so. Rather, this means that they would be so attractive that they would disgrace fine gold because of their beauty. The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome. It is related that it once happened that they did this to two children, and one of them said to the other: Where is this affliction written in the Torah? The other said to him: As it is written: “Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 28:61). The first one said: How far am I in my studies from this, i.e., how much more would I have had to learn in order to reach this verse? The other said: Had you gone on one and a half columns [pusta], you would have reached this. The first child said to the other: Had I reached this verse, I would not have needed you, as I would have known on my own that the verse was speaking about this. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affects my soul because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Beitar, and in each and every one of them there were four hundred schoolteachers, and each and every one of these teachers had four hundred schoolchildren. And when the enemy entered there, these schoolchildren stabbed them with their pens [beḥotreihen]. And when the enemy prevailed and caught them, they wrapped the children in their scrolls and lit them on fire. The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?” Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world. The two masters said: Come, let us marry these two slaves to one another and divide the children born to them between us, as they will certainly be very beautiful. They secluded them in a room. This one, the son, sat in one corner, and that one, the daughter, sat in the other corner. He said: I am a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I marry a female slave? And she said: I am the daughter of a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I be married to a male slave? And they wept all through the night. When dawn arrived they recognized each other and saw that they were brother and sister. They fell on each other and burst into tears until their souls departed due to their great distress. And with regard to them and others like them, Jeremiah lamented: “For these things I weep; my eye, my eye runs down with water” (Lamentations 1:16). Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze [tzofin] at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter [bat] of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum [lifnai velefnim] of the Temple. And it happened that she was taken captive and her captor abused and raped her all night. The next day he dressed her in seven garments and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was especially ugly came and said to the man who was selling her: Show me her beauty. He said to him: Good-for-nothing, if you wish to buy her then buy her, for there is no beauty like hers in all of the world. The potential buyer said to the seller: Even so, I wish to see for myself. He removed the six outermost garments, and she herself tore the seventh, and rolled in ashes. She said before God: Master of the Universe, even if You have shown no pity to us, and have allowed us to be disgraced in this way, why have You not shown pity to the sanctity of Your mighty name by which we are called? And with regard to her and others like her, Jeremiah lamented: “O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make you mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us” (Jeremiah 6:26). It is not stated: Upon you, but rather “upon us,” for the spoiler shall come, as it were, both over Me and over you. God Himself shares this pain and His name is also disgraced. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:2)? There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes on his master’s wife, and he was a carpenter’s apprentice [shulya]. One time his master needed to borrow some money, and his apprentice said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. He sent his wife to him, and the apprentice stayed with her for three days. He then went back to his master before she did, and the master said to him: Where is my wife whom I sent to you? The apprentice said to him: I sent her back immediately, but I heard that the youth abused and raped her on the way. The master said to his apprentice: What shall I do? The apprentice said to him: If you listen to my advice, divorce her. He said to him: But her marriage contract is large and I do not have the money to pay it. The apprentice said to him: I will lend you the money, and you will give her payment of her marriage contract. The master arose and divorced her, and the apprentice went and married her. When the time came that the debt was due, and he did not have the means with which to repay it, the apprentice said to his master: Come and work off your debt with me. And they, the apprentice and his wife, would sit and eat and drink, while he, the woman’s first husband, would stand over them and serve them their drinks. And tears would drop from his eyes and fall into their cups, and at that time the Jewish people’s sentence was sealed, for remaining silent in the face of this injustice. And some say that the Jewish people were punished for two wicks in one lamp, a euphemism for the sin of adultery committed by this couple while the master was still married to the woman. § The Gemara returns to the mishna, which states: If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, and afterward returned and purchased the same field from the prior landowner, so that he will be considered the legal owner of the field, his purchase is void. Rav says: They taught that the purchase is void only in a case where the prior owner says to the buyer when he came to acquire the field from him: Go, take possession of the field and thereby acquire it, as in such a case the prior owner can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. But if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer acquires the field. And Shmuel says: Even if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire it unless the prior owner writes him a guarantee that if the field is repossessed by a creditor of the prior owner, the prior owner, who sold him the field, will compensate him for his loss, as by writing this guarantee he demonstrates that this is a true sale. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2) in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one first purchased a field belonging to a married woman from the wife, so that if her husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, so that he will have the right to use it in the interim, his purchase stands. If he first acquired the field from the husband, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, his purchase is void, unless the woman writes him a guarantee. This supports Shmuel’s opinion that only when the prior owner writes the buyer a guarantee is it assumed that he sold him the field wholeheartedly. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav, who said that a written bill of sale suffices and a guarantee is not required. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: What is the guarantee mentioned here? It too is referring to a bill of sale, as it suffices that she sell him the field with a bill of sale, and it is not necessary for her to write him a guarantee in addition. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one purchased land from a Sicarius and consumed its produce for three years in the presence of the prior owner, and then the one who purchased it from the Sicarius returned and sold it to another person, the prior owner has no claim against the second buyer. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case? If the second buyer claims and says to the prior owner: After buying the property from the Sicarius, the first buyer returned and purchased it from you, providing you with proper reimbursement, then even the first buyer should be deemed credible if he claims that he purchased the property from the prior owner. This is because he has been physically in possession of the property for three years, and this can serve as proof that he is in fact the legal owner. And if the second buyer does not claim and say to the prior owner: He purchased the property from you, then even the second buyer should also not retain possession of the property. This is in accordance with the principle that physical possession of property that is not accompanied by a claim that the property was legally acquired cannot serve as proof of ownership. Rav Sheshet says: Actually, it is referring to a case where the second buyer does not claim that the first buyer purchased the property from the prior owner. And although in general, physical possession of property that is not accompanied by a claim that the property was legally acquired cannot serve as proof of ownership, in a case such as this the court makes a claim on behalf of an heir and the court makes a claim on behalf of a buyer. Since heirs and buyers are generally unaware of the circumstances in which their predecessor obtained possession of the property, the court advances the claim on their behalf that it had been acquired legally. And as to the other party, the first buyer, if he claims that he purchased the property from the prior owner, yes, he retains possession of the property, as his physical possession of the property is accompanied by a proper claim. But if he does not make such a claim, he does not retain possession, because the court does not make the claim on his behalf. § The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2): If property comes into one’s possession due to payment of a debt or due to unjust seizure [anparot] of the land by a gentile, the previously mentioned laws of Sicarii do not apply. And the unjustly seized land itself must remain in the possession of the gentile who seized it for at least twelve months before another buyer can take possession of it. The Gemara raises an objection based on the fact that the twelve-month waiting period is relevant to the laws of Sicarii: But didn’t you say that the laws of Sicarii do not apply in this case? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Property purchased from the Sicarius himself must remain in his possession for at least twelve months. Rav Yosef says that we have a tradition that there is no unjust seizure of land in Babylonia. The Gemara objects: But don’t we see that there is unjust seizure of land in Babylonia? Rather, say that there is no law of unjust seizure in Babylonia, meaning that this law is not applied in Babylonia. What is the reason for this? Since there is a regional seat of government [bei davar], and yet the owner does not go and complain before it that his property had been seized, say that he waived his rights to the property and consequently is unable to bring a claim about it. It is related that Giddel bar Re’ilai received land from the residents of a certain valley in exchange for payment of the land tax [taska]. All of the residents of the valley would jointly pay the land tax. After some of the residents had gone away, those who remained authorized Giddel bar Re’ilai to use the land of the absentee owners, on condition that Giddel would pay the land tax on their behalf. Giddel gave the money for three years in advance, although the tax was ordinarily paid annually. Eventually, after the first year, the prior owners came and said to Giddel: With regard to the first year for which you paid the tax, you have already consumed the produce. Now we will pay the taxes and we will consume the produce, and you shall have no further rights to it. The parties came before Rav Pappa to decide the case. At first he thought of writing for Giddel a document of authorization to repossess the property against the residents of the valley [baga], allowing Giddel to hold the land for two more years in compensation for the money that he had advanced for the taxes. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: If so, you made this law like that applying to a Sicarius, and it has already been established that the law of Sicarii does not apply in Babylonia. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In this case Giddel placed his money on the horn of a deer, meaning that he himself put his money in jeopardy. The money he had advanced is regarded as a gift, and he has no right to demand that he be reimbursed. § The mishna teaches: This is the initial version of the mishna. Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value. Rav says: He gives him one-fourth of what he paid by giving him a portion of the land, or else one-fourth in money, whichever he prefers. And Shmuel says: He gives him one-fourth of the land, which is one-third of the money that he paid. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do these amora’im disagree? One Sage, Shmuel, holds that the Sicarius sold the field to the buyer for one-fourth less than its actual value. Consequently, the buyer must return to the prior owner the amount by which he profited when he bought the property from the Sicarius, which is one-third of the money that he actually paid. And one Sage, Rav, holds that the Sicarius sold the field to the buyer for one-fifth less than its actual value. Consequently, the buyer is required to return to the prior owner only one-fifth of the actual value, which is one-fourth of what he actually paid. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: This is the initial version of the mishna. Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value, and the prior owner has the advantage. If he wants land, he takes what is due him in land, and if he wants money, he takes what is due him in money. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself; but if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later convened a court, and they counted their votes and determined that if the field remained before, i.e., in the possession of, the Sicarius for twelve months, whoever first purchases the field acquires possession of it, but he must give the prior owner one-fourth of its value by giving him a portion of the land or one-fourth in money. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav, but it is difficult for Shmuel. Rav Ashi said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one-fourth of the total amount after the money reached the prior owner’s possession. In other words, it does not refer to one-fourth of the money that the buyer paid the Sicarius, but one-fourth of the field’s actual value, which is one-third of what the buyer paid the Sicarius. Rav says:
בדפים הקודמים הבאנו שני תירוצים מדוע רבי יהושע פדה את רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע ביותר מכדי דמיו - כיוון שזאת סכנת פיקוח נפש וכיוון שהוא עתיד להיות תלמיד חכם.
נראה להלן תירוץ נוסף:
דלא ליגרבו ולייתו - ...בשעת חורבן הבית לא שייך דלא ליגרבו:
התוספות מסבירים שהתירוץ של הגמרא שאסור לפדות יותר מכדי דמיהן "דלא ליגברו ולייתו" - כלומר כדי שלא ירצו לחטוף עוד כדי להרוויח עוד כסף, תירוץ זה לא היה רלוונטי בשעת חורבן הבית. הרמב"ן והמאירי מסבירים שמכיוון שבשעת חורבן הבית בכל מקרה כולם הלכו בשבי, זה שמשלמים הרבה לא היה משפיע על כמות החטופים שנשבו ולא על המוטיבציה של החופטים לשבות עוד.
הרב אלישיב ז"ל נשאל לגבי שחרור מחבלים תמורת שבויים - האם אין כאן דין של "יותר מכדי דמיהם"? וענה על פי ההגיון המופיע בתוספות:
חשוקי חמד מסכת גיטין דף נח עמוד א
שאלה: האם מותר לשחרר מחבלים תמורת שבויים
מו"ח מרן הגרי"ש אלישיב שליט"א השיב, דחייבים בפקוח נפש לשחרר מחבלים, ואין כאן צד של גרבי, מאחר והמחבלים בין כך עושים מה שיכולים. וכמבואר בתוס' בגיטין (דף מה ע"א ד"ה דלא) דבשעת חורבן הבית לא שייך דלא ליגרבו.
הרב שאול ישראלי נקט בגישה אחרת.
לשם הבנת דבריו יש להקדים דין מיוחד שאדם חייב לפדות את אשתו אפילו ביותר מכדי דמיה:
רא"ש מסכת כתובות פרק ד סימן כב
ומתני' דגיטין איירי בשאר שבויין אבל אשתו כגופו וכמו שאדם יכול לפדות עצמו בכל ממונו אשתו נמי כיון דחייב לפדותה בתנאי כתובה כמו שיש לה ממון דמי וכן מסתבר.
הרא"ש מסביר שאיש חייב חייב לפדות את אשתו אפילו ביותר מכדי דמיה. זאת מכיוון שהאיש התחייב בכתובה, שהכסף שלו שייך גם לאשתו - כלומר האיש מחויב לפדות את אשתו בכל מחיר כי זה כאילו שהיא פודה את עצמה בכספה שלה. הרב שאול ישראלי נקט באותה גישה ביחס להתחייבות המדינה כלפי אזרחיה וחייליה:
האם יש להיענות לסחטנות בפדיון שבויים ובני ערובה? הרב שאול ישראלי (תורה שבעל פה יז, עמ' סט-עו
ועל פי זה נראה, שמנקודת מבט זו, יש לראות את חובת המדינה בפדיון שבויי המלחמה. שכיון שאלה יצאו למלחמה בשליחות המדינה ומטעמה, להגנת העם היושב בציון, הרי קיימת ועומדת התחייבות בלתי כתובה, אבל מובנת מאליה, שכל טצדקי שיש בידי המדינה לעשות (בגבולות סבירים שאינם פוגעים בבטחונה הכללי) כדי לפדותם במקרה שיפלו בשבי... 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 יותר על דמיהם.
אם כן, על פי מה שלמדנו, נראה ברור שהיום יש לנו חובה לפדות את כל השבויים ולשחרר את כל החטופים בכל מחיר. אם זה מכיוון שהם בסכנת נפשות (ואז אין דין יותר מכדי דמיהם), אם זה מכיוון ששחרורם בכל מחיר לא ישפיע על המוטיבציה של החוטפים, ואם זה בעקבות ההתחייבות הלא כתובה בין מדינה לאזרחיה וחייליה.