23 Nov Pollard’s Bracha After Parole
Jonathan Pollard is now a completely free man, having finished last Friday his five years of parole following 30 years in jail after pleading guilty to spying on the United States. There are two possible responses to release after such a long captivity. One is to become bitter over the time lost, the life that could have been lived. The other is to be grateful for the end of the ordeal, the new beginning. I cannot fathom the depth of his experience but I hope he can find his way to seeing the opportunities in his future. Reportedly, he will be making aliyah and starting a life in the promised land.
On completion of his parole, Pollard faces an interesting halachic question: Should he bentch gomel, recite the traditional bracha thanking G-d for salvation? This is a response of hope, of seeing the end of the past and the beginning of the future. His ability to recite this bracha lies in the conditions of his parole. As always, the details make all the difference.
The Gemara (Berachos 54b) says that four people need to bentch gomel: someone who travels by sea, journeys in the desert, becomes healed from illness or exits prison. These four categories are derived from Tehillim 107.
Two general approaches emerge in the commentaries regarding this bracha. Ashkenazic authorities tend to see this bracha as reserved for those who emerge from life-threatening situations. For example, the Rosh (Berachos 9:3) says that the custom in Germany and France is to refrain from reciting this bracha when traveling from city to city because there is no danger to life. The Ra’avad (quoted in Birkei Yosef, Shiyurei Berachah, Orach Chaim 219:1) rules that the bracha only applies to a life-threatening illness.
However, the Rosh notes, the Aruch implies that even someone whose headache goes away should recite this bracha. Similarly, in a responsum, the Ri Migash (no. 90) rules that someone who is released from debtors’ prison–i.e. who faced no threat to life–should recite the bracha. According to the Ri Migash, the bracha on release from prison is about regaining freedom, not salvation from death.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 219:8) rules that you recite this bracha after recovering from any serious illness, even if it was not life threatening. However, the Rema (ad loc.) says that the Ashkenazic practice is to only recite the bracha after a life threatening illness. Similarly, the Magen Avraham (ad loc., 1) writes that you only recite the bracha after exiting a life threatening imprisonment. The Birkei Yosef (ibid.) argues that release from any prison sentence merits recitation of the bracha, like the Ri Migash.
The Mishnah Berurah (219, Bi’ur Halachah sv. chavush) explains that the Magen Avraham‘s view is based on a life threat. Regardless of the sentence, if the prisoner faced a life threat–such as being held in a highly dangerous prison–then he should recite the bracha. However, the Kaf Ha-Chaim (219:11) rules that even someone imprisoned in a comfortable prison for a monetary matter should recite the bracha. Following the Ri Migash, he explains that the bracha here refers to a lack of freedom. Once that freedom is regained, you should say the bracha.
The Aruch Ha-Shulchan (209:25) adds another consideration. On the one hand, he rules leniently that even someone released from prison on a monetary matter recites the bracha. However, he explains that this view–of Ri Migash–connects the bracha to renewed freedom. This only applies if he is truly free without any conditions. If, for example, he is subject to home arrest then he cannot recite the bracha because he is not truly free. Presumably, when those conditions end, then he recites the bracha because he is truly free.
Should Jonathan Pollard bentch gomel at the end of his parole? Among the conditions of his parole were that he had to obey a curfew, wear a GPS monitoring device, and required permission to leave Manhattan. He certainly could not travel to Israel. I once saw Pollard shopping in Flatbush and learned that he had to obtain special permission for that unusual shopping trip. In other words, his movement was severely restricted. Should he bench gomel now, when these restrictions are lifted?
On the one hand, Pollard was never given a death sentence so a simple reading of the Magen Avraham would imply that he should not recite the bracha, both when he left prison and when the restrictions are lifted. However, the Mishnah Berurah adds that any threat to life while in prison would merit a bracha on release. If his prison stay was at any time life threatening, then he would recite the bracha. On his release, he became free from the position of possibly being in a life threatening prison situation. This does not apply to the lifting of parole restrictions.
Other authorities are more open to the bracha on regaining freedom. According to this approach, Pollard should have recited the bracha when he was released from prison. However, due to the conditions of his parole, Pollard was not truly free on his release. According to the Aruch Ha-Shulchan the parole restriction on his movement mean that Pollard will only be fully released from captivity when his parole concludes. If that is the case, presumably he should bentch gomel now, when he gains freedom of movement and the ability to fulfill the great mitzvah of moving to Israel. But I leave that to his rabbi to decide.