Torah MiTzion - Religious Zionist Kollels

Scenario: Terrorists have taken Jews as hostages, and are now threatening to kill them, if a number of detained (and extremely dangerous) terrorists are not released.

Question: Should Israelaccede to the terrorists’ demands, in order to save the hostages from certain death, taking the risk that the release of the terrorists now (and saving the lives of those Jews who are currently in danger) will increase future acts of terror, murder and sabotage, possibly on an even greater scale?

***

Is it correct to instigate military campaigns for the release of captives or hostages as was done in the “Entebbe Campaign” which is remembered (after the fact) for its bold and daring exploits, and in the failed attempt to free captured IDF soldier, Nachshon Waxman z”l? Or perhaps the lives of other soldiers should not be endangered in order save those taken captive or wounded?

Israel’s security forces have had to deal with all of the above questions on several occasions. In the enlightening responsum we cited in our last column, Rav Shaul Yisraeli[1] touches on these difficult issues as well:

“Unlike the considerations which guided us in the case of redeeming captured soldiers [see our last column for a discussion of these considerations], the undertaking of the State owed towards its soldiers is not present in this case; and here, too, the danger of aggravating terror and increasing the number of its victims, is sufficiently palpable, to the extent that to save these hostages would involve the murder of other innocent lives.

On the other hand, the danger is more imminent to the lives and welfare of the hostages; and while it is true that the lives of anyone taken captive are to some extent in danger (“because captivity includes all of these…”), the latter have a much better chance of remaining alive than hostages in the clutches of terrorists, who have determined a specific hour by which they will be killed if their demands remain unanswered.”

In an earlier column, we cited the distinction made by Tosafot (Gittin 58a, s.v. col) in this regard: “where there is a danger to life, captives may be redeemed for more than their value.” Rav Shlomo Luria, the Maharshal, writing in Polandin the 16^th century (Yam Shel Shlomo to Gittin 4:66) cites with admiration the benevolence he has heard about certain communities in Mediterranean countries, and encourages them to pay high prices for the redemption of captives:

And nowadays, men of great deeds in and around the landof Togarma[Turkey] redeem captives for more than their worth. I also heard that the despot [i.e. the Emperor who seized Maharam MiRotenberg] also wanted to seize his student, the Rosh, and he became aware of this and escaped to Tolitula, and was thus saved by His mercy and kindness. They are willing to overlook the financial burden on the community - may Hashem reward them for their actions. Because of our sins, we too have become diminished in the exile, and it thus becomes necessary to save the remnants, so that the flame of Israeldoes not become extinguished… Therefore, in cases of danger to life, we redeem captives for greater than their value.

“Even though it is true,” continues Rav Shaul Yisraeli, “that the life of every captive is in danger, there is a difference between the danger of captivity and clear and immediate danger, such as in the time of the Crusades and the terrible massacres of the Middle Ages. That being a case of certain danger, there exists no limitation on the resources that can and should be expended in the redemption of captives - notwithstanding the risk that this practice will provide an incentive for further kidnappings - because certain danger takes precedence over doubtful danger. According to this principle, it follows that, in the event of the seizure of hostages, which is a case of clear and palpable danger, all concerns for the future are to be swept aside, in order to save the hostages from the real danger with which they are confronted at this moment.

Notwithstanding the above analysis, the approach advocated by the Tosafot and the Maharshal is not codified in the Shulchan Aruch - perhaps because according to the Talmud Bavli there is no obligation for a person to place himself in danger in order to save his fellow, even when his fellow is in certain danger[2] . And our issue of redeeming captives for more than their value because of the problem of generating incentive is similar to this - saving one person by causing danger to others in the process.

However, even according to the Minchat Chinuch, there is no prohibition involved - and it is not regarded as if he has placed himself in danger for no purpose, because his act ensures that his fellow is saved from certain death. It is true that Halacha holds by the principle of “Who says that your friend’s blood is redder than yours?” and does not therefore require a person to put himself in any danger in order to save others. However, Halacha also recognizes the principle of “Who says that your blood is redder than his?” (Sanhedrin 74a). And since by endangering himself he is saving his fellow, there is no prohibition incurred by his act…”

Rav Yisraeli concludes his responsum by citing the behavior of Avraham Avinu who was the first person mentioned in the Torah to carry out the Mitzvah of Pidyon Shevuyim. “When Avraham heard that his brother had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men… and pursued as far as Dan” (Bereshit 14:14). The Midrash (Bereshit Rabba 43) applies to Avraham’s conduct the pasuk “who seals his ears from hearing of bloodshed” (Isaiah 33:15) - because he did not accept the fact that his nephew Lot’s blood had been spilt, but went to assist him (according to the Mefarshim). Avraham thus endangered his own life, and even expended a fortune of money to this end, according to Shmuel’s explanation of the words “he led forth [vayarek]his trained men” - he gave them [horikan] lots of money in order to convince them to join him in battle (Nedarim 32a). All of this was performed by Avraham in order to save Lotfrom captivity - and even though Lothad disassociated himself from Avraham.

We find no criticism by Chazal of Avraham’s conduct. To the contrary, Chazal praised Avraham by applying to him the verse “Of evil tidings he will have no fear; his heart is firm, confident in Hashem” (Tehillim 112:7). However, a distinction needs to be made between the type of risk assumed by Avraham - which was in the nature of a kiddush Hashem - as the Midrash there explains: ‘I will go out and fall in sanctification of God’s Name’ - and the danger, in the case at hand, which assumes the characteristics of giving in to the demands of the enemy.”

Therefore, concludes Rav Yisraeli, “the question could go either way, and is a matter for the security forces to decide; and may the Guardian of Israel preserve and protect His people, Israel, that they should not have to withstand such difficult tests and that the Torah’s assurance to us be fulfilled: And I will provide peace in the land… and the sword will not cross your land.” We can only agree.

[1] Chavat Binyamin Siman 16.

[2] See Minchat Chinuch 237:2; and see our article “The Duty to Rescue v. Self-Jeopardy” printed on the Torah MiTzion website: vol. 1, issue 10, Parshat Vayera.