Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: Judaism’s Approach to Redeeming Hostages: It’s Complicated
Pidyon shvuyim: ransoming hostages. Is this the “highest Jewish value” as many have recently claimed? Not quite. A survey of Judaism’s pronouncements conveys a complex and nuanced picture. Of course, this only makes Israel’s hostage dilemma even more difficult – one of the hardest that the country has ever faced.
First, the Bible offers no specific commandment regarding payment to gain the release of hostages – this despite the fact that the Torah has several other commandments regarding the conduct of war (even a prohibition against unnecessarily cutting down trees!). In fact, the three “examples” of hostage-taking in the Bible do show a clear pattern: fight the hostage-takers until release is achieved. In Genesis 14: 12-16, Abraham endangered himself by going to war against the “Four Kings” who had captured his cousin Lot; he succeeded to free Lot from captivity. In Numbers 21: 1-3, the Canaanite king of Arad captured a number of Israelites; the latter’s response was to completely destroy those cities. Interestingly, the Bible there does not mention whether the captured Israelites were freed or died in the battle. Third, in Samuel I, chap. 30, the Amalekites invaded Zyklog, the city where David resided at the time, and captured the women (among others), including David’s two wives. The result: David took his small army and killed almost all the Amalekites, successfully saving the women.
In short, the Bible’s narrative indirectly suggests that the way to bring back hostages is not payment but rather to destroy the enemy.
However, several of the most distinguished, medieval Jewish law commentators took a somewhat different tack. Perhaps the greatest of all, Maimonides (the RAMBAM), argued in his Mishne Torah (Book of Zera’im, Laws of Charity for the Poor, 8: 10) that ransoming Jewish lives takes precedence even over alms for the poor in one’s community. A few centuries later, the authoritative compendium of commandments, the Shulkhan Arukh (by Rabbi Yosef Karo), stated clearly: “Every moment that one delays in ransoming Jewish captives… is equivalent to spilling blood” (Yoreh Day’ah, 252: 3).
What’s the difference between the Bible’s military approach to saving war hostages, and the rabbinical commentators’ dictum of paying to redeem them? I would argue that it’s a function of power. It can’t be coincidental that when the Israelites had armies, brute force was called for; when powerless in Diaspora, other means were necessary (Maimonides grew up in Muslim Cordoba, Spain, but had to escape to Egypt in order to avoid forced conversion).
All of this still leaves open the critical question of “price.” Put simply, is there a limit to what Jews must pay to redeem their own kind from captivity? Here too the picture is somewhat ambiguous.
A personal note: my grandmother’s maiden family name was Rothenburg, and she claimed direct descent from the 13th century (yes: THIRTEENTH century!) rabbinical leader of Ashkenaz (today’s Germany and surroundings): the MAHARAM of Rothenburg. He was kidnapped for ransom by Gentiles, a relatively common practice back then. In captivity, the MAHARAM issued a command to his community not to ransom him because the demanded price was too high. He felt that if the price was paid, it would only encourage further kidnappings. The result: he died in captivity seven years later, refusing to allow his community to spend a princely sum on him.
Was this a one-off case? Not really. The MAHARAM was echoing Maimonides’ earlier caveat to his own dictum (cited above, a mere two sub-sections later): “One does not ransom [Jewish] captives more than they are worth… so that our enemies shouldn’t constantly try to capture them.” Then he goes even further: “One should not try to free them by force, lest the enemy make the captivity conditions even worse for the captives”!
In fact, Maimonides’ caveat was taken straight from the Mishneh (Tractate Gittin, chap. 4, law 6). But like so many other issues in the Talmud, while examples are brought illustrating this, others are shown to have abrogated it i.e., heavy ransoms were paid.
Looking at the present situation of numerous Israelis held hostage in Gaza, it is clear that the Jewish tradition supports both sides of the argument. Those demanding the release of the hostages at all costs can rely on the occasional Talmudic example and the specific strictures of other later commentators. Conversely, those not willing to pay an exorbitant price – not necessarily in cash, but rather in released terrorists and ending the war before Hamas is completely eliminated – can rely on the Bible’s case studies, several Talmudic and other commentators, and the amazing self-sacrifice of the MAHARAM of Rothenburg.
As I said earlier, the dilemma facing Israel’s leadership is a devilish dilemma. That’s not only because of the various moral aspects involving the issue, but also because the Jewish tradition (and halakha) does not offer a straightforward answer as to what to do in such cases. Is one great Rabbi refusing to be ransomed enough to constitute a precedent for how (not) to ransom well over a hundred Jewish lives – especially if releasing many terrorists from Israeli incarceration could be considered a future price too high? Is the Bible’s military approach (releasing hostages by killing the enemy) more relevant to this situation than the Talmud’s and later commentators’ monetary solutions? No clear-cut answer can be derived from the Jewish past – despite claims that hostage redemption is a Jewish value “above all else.”
