18 Jun THE ONGOING ETHICAL DILEMMA: RELEASING HOSTAGES IN JEWISH TRADITION.

Jews around the
world have strong
s e n t i m e n t s
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 the
the that (יורה דעה רנב א-ג) Aruch Shulchan
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
Rothenburg(מרוטנבורג המהר״ם (, a 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. The
a recounts) גיטין נח,א)Gemara
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.