13 Feb THE ONGOING ETHICAL DILEMMA: RELEASING HOSTAGES IN JEWISH TRADITION

Jews around the
world have strong
sentiments regarding
hostages, stemming
from a profound
sense of unity and
familial connection. When one member of
the community suffers, it’s felt as if a close
relative is in pain. During periods when
Jewish hostages endure exceptionally
harsh conditions, the collective anguish
reverberates throughout the community.
Tracing back to our forefather Abraham,
who waged war to rescue his nephew Lot
from captivity, and continuing through the
battle against Shechem, who had
kidnapped Dinah, the tradition persists to
this day. Even in modern times, the Jewish
people have released many prisoners,
including terrorists, to secure the freedom
of a single hostage.
In Jewish tradition, the preservation of life
is of paramount importance. This principle,
known as “pikuach nefesh,” mandates that
almost any commandment can be
suspended to save a life. However,
navigating situations involving hostages
can be complex. Halacha recognizes the
obligation to secure the release of hostages,
emphasizing the importance of negotiation,
ransom payment and diplomatic efforts.
The plight of the captive is dire. In
captivity, they are expected to endure
suffering and potentially face death (בבא
ב,ח בתרא(. Therefore, it is established in
that (יורה דעה רנב א-ג) Aruch Shulchan the
the redemption of captives takes
precedence over all other charitable acts.
There is no greater mitzvah than redeeming
captives, and every moment delayed in
their redemption, when it is possible to
expedite it, is akin to shedding blood.
Despite this emotional response, it’s
crucial to examine the matter through the
lens of Jewish law (Halacha) and Torah
teachings.
Release of hostages for a substantial price.
Our sages enacted two principles that
. (‘גיטין פרק ד‘ משנה ו)discussion warrant
Firstly, they established a prohibition
against redeeming captives for more than
their worth. In other words, it is forbidden
to pay a higher price for the release of a
Jewish captive than what is normally paid
for other captives. Secondly, they advised
against attempting to secure their release.
Let’s start by discussing the first principle,
and later, we’ll delve into the second and
examine its relevance to our days.

There are two rationales behind the first
enactment (א,מה גיטין(: one is to avoid
financially burdening the public, and the
second is to prevent enemies from
deliberately capturing Jewish hostages
due to the high price they receive for them.
If the rescue of captives comes at an
inflated cost, it could lead to the future
abduction and captivity of many other
Jews.
Rashi suggests that the difference between
those two opinions lies in a scenario where
a relative of the captive is willing to pay
the high price. According to the rationale
of not burdening the public financially,
this would be permitted as the relative
takes on the entire expense. However,
according to the concern that paying a
high price may incentivize further
abductions, it is forbidden.
Applying those reasons to our time, where
the price of releasing hostages might
involve the release of convicted terrorists
with blood on their hands, both rationales
apply. Firstly, even though the terrorists
aren’t requesting money, the cost is still
high as it entails the risk of these
individuals returning to harm other Jews,
as history has shown. Additionally, the
rescue of such terrorists is deeply painful
for the victims’ families and indeed for the
entire Jewish community. Secondly, the
high price paid for their release could
indeed encourage further abductions,
perpetuating the cycle of violence and
endangering more of our people.
One notable story that aligns with your
query is that of Rabbi Meir of
a ,) המהר״ם מרוטנבורג)Rothenburg
prominent medieval Jewish scholar and
leader. Rabbi Meir was taken captive by
the German authorities in 1286.
During his captivity, Rabbi Meir was
offered several opportunities to secure his
release, either by paying a hefty ransom or
by converting to Christianity. However, he
steadfastly refused to do so, maintaining
his commitment to the halacha that a
hostage may not be released for more than
the accepted value.
Despite enduring harsh conditions and
pressure to renounce Judaism, Rabbi Meir
remained resolute in his beliefs. He saw
his captivity as an opportunity to
demonstrate unwavering devotion to his
religion and inspire others to remain
steadfast in the face of adversity.
Rabbi Meir’s decision not to pursue his
release had significant consequences. He
remained in captivity until his death in

1293, spending his final
years imprisoned in the
fortress of Ensisheim
There are exceptions to
this rule, particularly if a
person’s life is in danger.
(גיטין נח,א)Gemara The
recounts a story of Rabbi
Yehoshua ben Chananya,
who encountered a
beautiful Jewish boy in
captivity, later known as
Rabbi Yishmael ben
Elisha. Rabbi Yehoshua
decided to redeem him from captivity at
any cost they would ask for him. Tosfot
raises the question of whether this
contradicts the rule established by Chazal,
and answers that since the boy’s life was in
danger, he could be released at any price.
From this incident, we learn that when a
hostage’s life is threatened, the principle
of not redeeming captives for more than
their worth is uplifted. On the other hand,
the Ramban contends that every hostage is
inherently at risk of losing their life, and
Chazal established their rule precisely
with this in mind. Therefore, it is forbidden
to pay more than their assessed value for
their release.
Today, poskim debate whether it is
permitted to release Jewish hostages for a
hefty and extortionate price, such as
releasing terrorists. Chacham Ovadia(יבי״א
תעא עמוד ח״י (permits this based on two
main reasons. Firstly, he cites the opinion
of Tosfot, who permits redeeming Jewish
hostages whenever their lives are in
danger. Secondly, regarding the concern
that such actions might encourage
terrorists to further kidnap people, he
argues that terrorists attempt such acts
regardless, and releasing hostages under
these circumstances is unlikely to change
their behavior.
Today, we may observe a departure from
his previous ruling. We can no longer rely
on the logic of releasing hostages solely
because they are at risk. Recent events
have shown that releasing them in
exchange for convicted murderers often
leads to more bloodshed among innocent
Jewish people. Therefore, we cannot
justify saving one Jew while placing
others at real and tangible risk.
Additionally, the argument that terrorists
will attempt kidnappings regardless of our
actions seems less valid today. The
incentive for terrorists to kidnap has
intensified, as they now perceive a greater

reward if successful. Consequently, we
cannot dismiss the potential consequences
of releasing hostages lightly.
Escape of the hostages and its
consequences.
The second takana (enactment) of Chazal
was that we should not attempt to release
hostages. The rationale behind this
directive is that if we do, the kidnappers
will intensify the conditions for future
captives, often resorting to harsher
measures such as tying them with ropes.
This reasoning remains highly relevant
today. We have witnessed instances where,
after releasing hostages like the soldier Uri
Magidish, terrorists have imposed even
harsher conditions on remaining hostages,
confining them to cages and subjecting
them to severe treatment, including being
tied with ropes.
In my humble opinion, considering the
fragmented nature of terrorist organizations
today, releasing hostages could be a viable
option. However, it should be conducted
discreetly, without publicizing it in the
media or around the world. This way, the
terrorists would remain unaware and less
likely to enforce harsher conditions on the
remaining hostages.
The Israeli government’s approach to
negotiating with terrorists, such as the
release of Gilad Shalit in exchange for
over a thousand convicted terrorists, has
been a subject of debate. Some criticize
this strategy, arguing that it rewards
terrorism and jeopardizes security by
releasing individuals who may pose a
threat. Many of them were implicated in
significant acts of violence, including the
masterminding of atrocities during
Simchat Torah, as well as the release of
Hamas leader Sinwar.
Additionally, there are concerns that
public advocacy for the release of hostages
could inadvertently raise their value in the
eyes of the captors, making it more
difficult to secure their safe return.