Pidyon shvuyim, the redemption of captives, is a major obligation of the community, according to Torah law. For instance, 12th-century Talmudist, jurist, physician, and philosopher Moses Maimonides – one of the greatest Jewish scholars of all time – stated, “The redeeming of captives takes precedence over supporting the poor or clothing them. There is no greater mitzvah than redeeming captives” (Mishneh Torah, “Hilchot Matanot Aniyim” 8:10-11).
But is that the case in all circumstances – particularly now, when 136 hostages remain in Gaza?
Some people claim that this mitzvah takes precedence over all considerations; others say that during wartime, we must not surrender to the demands of the Hamas terrorist organization for their release. It appears, however, that the issue is not black and white.
The Magazine spoke with five spiritual leaders – leading Torah scholars in Israel, a rabbanit/teacher of Talmud and Jewish law, and a Reform rabbi in New York – for their perspectives. Following are excerpts of the interviews.
‘Judaism is about constant disagreements’
Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, a Modern Orthodox rabbi, is director of the Tzohar Center for Jewish Ethics and founder of the Tzohar Rabbinical Organization in Israel. He is a posek, a legal scholar who determines the application of Halacha (Jewish law) where no previous case exists.
“First of all,” he told the Magazine, “let’s admit that there is no opinion in Judaism on this question. This is for two reasons. First, we don’t have a pope to represent what Judaism is. Judaism is about constant disagreements, so it’s very difficult to speak in the name of Judaism. The second reason is that we didn’t have an independent state for over 2,000 years, since the time of the Hashmonaim [Hasmonean dynasty], so all the rules, legislations, and laws of how to conduct a state were not discussed for thousands of years. Because we are facing a new situation, everybody who speaks on behalf of Judaism is, more or less, expressing his or her opinion and trying to cover it with Judaism. That’s in general.
“In this current situation, what is more difficult is the fact that most of the scholars in Judaism would say that you have to see not only the interests of the hostages but the entire picture, and society always comes before the individual. However, in this case, bringing the hostages home is not in the individual’s interest only. It’s also part of society’s interests, the state’s interests. If, God forbid, we will not be able to bring them back, it would be a real failure of the state; it affects not only the hostages. Therefore, this is a very complicated issue, and there are many opinions about this question.
‘Ensuring the safety of future generations’
“It’s simple and complex at the same time,” explained Rabbi Reuven Taragin, dean of overseas students, Yeshivat HaKotel, and director of the global Religious-Zionist movement, World Mizrachi.
The Mishna in Tractate Gittin 4:6, discusses situations that existed in the past in which people were taken hostage for ransom. According to the Mishna, Taragin noted, “captives may not be ransomed for more than their value, for the sake of the social order [tikkun olam].” This is the closest halachic precedent.
“The Gemara makes two suggestions as to why they cannot be ransomed for more than their value. One is that it’s a burden on the community to raise the funds. The other reason, which is very relevant, is that people will raise the price and try to get more hostages because it’s profitable,” Taragin said, citing a famous case. In 1286, there was a great rabbi in Germany, Meir of Rothenburg, who was taken captive and would not allow the people to redeem him.
“The easiest thing is to say that it sounds very similar [to today’s situation with the hostages], but it’s not the same thing for a few reasons. First, here we’re dealing with a situation where people’s lives are threatened. Today’s hostages weren’t taken captive for money; their lives are at risk. So we’re dealing with pikuah nefesh [saving a life], and we take that very seriously. On the other hand, we’re talking about more than paying financial ransom; the question is about freeing terrorists [in exchange for the hostages] and, in addition, possibly hampering the war effort and endangering our future safety.
“Another important difference is that we are dealing with the context of a war, which again impacts both sides [of the argument]. Some people, in favor of a deal, say, ‘It’s a war. People take risks during war; that’s what we do; and it’s important to protect soldiers and anyone who’s involved in the conflict. Everyone is a target of terrorism, so we’re all part of this war.’ Others say the opposite: Because it’s a war, we should not do anything that would strengthen the enemy.
“That’s the pure halachic overview. I would say that most of the poskim [legal scholars] hold that in the end, we have a country, and that’s the biggest difference between the situation now and then. In the past, we weren’t dealing with a country, we were dealing with a local situation. It’s the job of the country’s leaders to do what they think is best for the war and for the country. Ultimately, most poskim feel that in the end, we must defer to the government. That is Halacha.
“Nothing I said until now is my own opinion, and I think it’s important to distinguish between when rabbis speak on behalf of the tradition and when they give their own opinions. The most important thing is to get clarity on what Judaism says. One can reach different conclusions, based on tradition, but it’s important for the public to be aware of how rabbis come to their decisions and what the issues and considerations are.
“I do agree that we need a government to represent us. You can’t have eight million people deciding. Also, those in power know many things that we don’t know. But if you ask me, I think the priority needs to be ensuring, as much as we can, the safety of future generations. If you look back, past hostage releases have clearly inspired more hostage-taking and led to other terrible consequences. Many of those [exchanged terrorist prisoners] released, including Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, have continued their terror efforts, and their release has made them heroes and ‘inspired’ others to follow their lead. Past releases are the reason why there are so many hostages right now. Doing so again could very well lead, God forbid, to even more [kidnappings] in the future.
“I believe that in Halacha, there are two ways. And again, we all must recognize that the government is the body that should make the decision. In principle, our first priority must be our future safety, and we must not do things that will ultimately endanger us.
“I’m not saying we shouldn’t make a deal. I’m saying that the priority under consideration is to make us safer in the long run. The question is how to balance between the long term and the short term,” he said.
Regarding the hostages, “we have to be very sensitive,” he stressed. “On the one hand, we have to make our priorities clear so that we don’t endanger our future; in retrospect, many people think that the Gilad Schalit deal was a mistake. On the other hand, we have to remember that we are dealing here with people, with families. We have to err on the side of sensitivity and unity.
“I don’t want to criticize anyone, especially among the hostage families. The mishna in Avot (2:4) says, ‘Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place,’ and that is obviously true in this case... But a better slogan might have been, ‘Let my people go’ as opposed to ‘Bring them home now,’ as if it’s us and our decision. Israel and the United States didn’t say ‘Bring them home’ when calling for the freedom of Soviet Jewry. They said, ‘Let our people go,’ and they were pressuring the right address, which was the Soviet government that was holding them hostage.
“There are also voices among the hostage families calling on the government not to make a bad deal,” he added. “They’re calling to get their children back, but some are expressing themselves by protesting against the aid being sent to Gaza, focusing on that instead of presenting the government of Israel as the problem.”
‘I have not changed my mind’
Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin is president of The Schechter Institutes, Inc. and president emeritus of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. He referred the Magazine to an article he wrote on pidyon shvuyim, published 20 years ago on the Schechter website, which also appeared in his book Insight Israel (second series), Jerusalem, 2006. A shorter version appeared in The Jerusalem Post on November 18, 2003. The article deals specifically with the question of exchanging thousands of terrorists for a small number of Israelis.
Golinkin’s article provides examples of opposing views with historical context:
“Since 1971, many rabbis have written responsa, or halachic articles, about our current dilemma. Most have ruled that Israel may not exchange hundreds or thousands of terrorists for a few Israeli soldiers. We shall summarize the opinions of Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who was against such exchanges, and of Rabbi Hayim David Halevi, who justified Israel’s actions in 1985, after the fact,” Golinkin wrote.
Goren (1917-1994) served as Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel and was the first head of the military rabbinate of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Halevi (1924-1998), who fought in Israel’s War of Independence, served as the Sephardi chief rabbi of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Goren, in an article written on May 31, 1985, when Israel was deciding whether to return 1,150 Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners for the release of three Israeli soldiers, stated that Jewish law absolutely forbade the Israeli government to redeem “our captive soldiers in exchange for 1,150 terrorists.” In response, Halevi said that he disagreed with Goren’s conclusion.
In his 2003 article, Golinkin concluded: “I was not asked by the Israeli government for my opinion, but if I were asked, I would have to reluctantly agree with the majority of Israeli rabbis who have written on this subject. I am certainly in favor of halachic innovation as advocated by Rabbi Halevi, but I think he is missing the plain meaning of the Mishna. We do not pay excessive ransom for the public good... In other words, it endangers the public and should not be done.”
In conversation with the Magazine, Golinkin said that although the current situation is a “painful” one, “I have not changed my mind since then, and the Gilad Schalit fiasco proved that I was correct...
“I fully sympathize with the desire of the families and of many in the Israeli public to free all the hostages. However, from the point of view of Jewish law, I believe that Rabbi Goren was correct.
“We do not pay excessive ransom mipney tikkun olam, for the public good. In other words, the public takes precedence over the individual, even if this endangers the individual. Exchanging 6000 terrorists for 135 Israelis encourages the kidnapping of Israelis and frees thousands of terrorists who will pick up their weapons and attack Israel. Indeed, according to many experts, this is exactly what happened on October 7th. Most of the terrorists who planned and executed the massacres, including Sinwar, were released by Israel in the Gilad Schalit prisoner exchange. Therefore, such a lopsided exchange endangers the public and should not be done.”
‘An existential crisis’
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch is the senior rabbi of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York City and former executive director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America/World Union for Progressive Judaism, North America.
“Redeeming hostages is, and has been for centuries, among the most painful and difficult issues for the Jewish community,” he told the Magazine.
“The first thing to bear in mind is that freeing Jewish captives is a central and high Jewish obligation. It illustrates the supreme importance that Judaism places on life and preserving the dignity of the human being. Further, pidyon shvuyim is an obligation that falls on the community as a whole. This is especially so in Israel for two reasons. One because, unlike the past 2,000 years, Jews have a state whose capacity to redeem the captives is far greater than a weak and vulnerable Diaspora Jewish community in, say, the Middle Ages. Two because the State of Israel – the collective – failed these hostages in stunning and tragic ways on October 7.
“This failure goes to the very heart of the Zionist enterprise itself. Israelis sense this most of all. They realize that unless and until the hostages are returned, the collapse of confidence in the state’s basic promise to its citizens and, by extension, world Jewry, to protect Jews from pogroms, murder, mayhem, and kidnapping will fester and intensify. It is an existential crisis in the Zionist enterprise itself that we cannot adequately recover from if the hostages are not returned and are left to die or rot in the dungeon or are abandoned by Israel. Furthermore, every day that goes by while this crisis is unresolved deepens the pain and the alienation.
“I have spoken with families of hostages. It is an open wound, an unimaginable trauma that is so painful as to dominate every waking moment for the families. No other life is possible while this wound continues to bleed. It is a feeling felt less intensely, but overpoweringly, by millions of Jews in Israel and throughout the world.
“At the same time, no value in Judaism is absolute. Only God is absolute. On Earth, human values conflict and need to be balanced. This is the greatness of the Jewish way. We seek to sanctify life as it is, not in some utopian fantasy. Jewish tradition discusses at great length the limitations to pidyon shvuyim, which include the cost to the community, as well as the understanding that paying an exorbitant price will encourage additional hostage-taking in the future and endanger more Jews.
“The upcoming decision of the Israeli government will be one of Israel’s most painful and consequential ever. Jewish tradition, Jewish values, and the future well-being of the Jewish state and world Jewry require Israel to pay a very high and painful price for the return of the hostages. But it cannot be any price, at all costs.
“My hope – and my estimation – is that Israel will eventually pay this very high cost for the reasons I mentioned above; [otherwise] the harm to the well-being of Jews, as well as to the Jewish state, in not redeeming the hostages will be monumental.
“Assuming that there is a deal to be had and the hostages who are still alive return home, I pray that Israel and world Jewry can then truly begin our recovery from the historic trauma of October 7, and I pray that we will be stronger for it in the future.
“Israel and the entire Western world are dealing with a vicious and merciless foe. Hamas’s ability to endanger Israel, let alone repeat October 7, must be eliminated. Otherwise, no Israeli will feel safe, and life in Israel as we know it and want it will be out of reach.
‘How much is one life worth?’
“Let’s go back to the original conversation, a very early conversation in the Mishna, which says that you may not redeem captives for more than their worth,” said Nechama Goldman Barash, director of the Pardes Learning Center in Jerusalem and teacher of Talmud and contemporary Halacha.
“The Mishna calls that Tikkun Olam, and the Talmud then asks: Why? Is it that we’re afraid that if we pay more than a captive’s worth, it will incentivize kidnapping? Or is it a drain on the community?
“And, in the classic Talmudic way, the difference between the two positions is that if an individual has tremendous resources, perhaps he may redeem his loved one from captivity without consequence for the community. In other words, it’s agreed that there’s a glass ceiling, that you may not redeem captives for more than their worth, but then there’s a split: Is it because we don’t want to incentivize kidnappers, or is it because it will bankrupt the community? Redeeming captives is an incredible mitzvah, but there’s a cap, and that cap, ‘for more than they’re worth,’ is a little vague. You could translate it to ‘whatever is reasonable.’
“So, this remains the gold standard – to redeem the captives but not pay excessively for their redemption. Maimonides, for instance, cites seven mitzvot that are associated with redeeming captives. In other words, it fulfills many of the Torah’s mandates, such as not standing idly by while your brother’s blood is being shed, loving your neighbor as yourself, and so on. And we have a caveat that there is still a limit in terms of going beyond what is reasonable for redemption.
“There are another two pieces that I think are relevant. One – which the Talmud and then Maimonides and the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) picked up – is that there are some people for whom you’re going to pay a higher price, and in the world of rabbinic literature, they are the Torah scholars.
“When I teach this, I extrapolate and discuss what is meant by a person’s worth. Today, we have Torah scholars everywhere, but in the Middle Ages, you might have had one Torah scholar per community, and he may not have even been a great Torah scholar. So, I have suggested that today, perhaps I could regard a doctor in Appalachia as someone who is of untold worth in the community. We then have the precedent of Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg [mentioned above by Rabbi Taragin], a leader and outstanding Torah scholar who refuses to be redeemed; he does not want to incentivize the kidnapping of Torah scholars.
“So, the halachic conversation is that you redeem, but not at all costs; and if someone is of greater worth to the community, you go beyond what would be the normal resources for redeeming.
“All of this is very interesting, but what does it have to do with us?
“I would say that Gilad Schalit,” who was released in 2011 in exchange for 1,027 security prisoners, “reawakened a lot of this conversation,” Barash said, noting that controversy among rabbis at the time surrounded this issue.
“No one should think that Jewish law takes the issue of redeeming captives lightly; it takes it very seriously. But Jewish law also has this keen awareness of the consequences to the greater good, to the klal [community].
“The Talmud tells the story of Levi ben Darga, who was wealthy and whose daughter was kidnapped, and he paid a ridiculous amount, 13,000 gold dinars, for her release. The rabbis don’t protest, but they also don’t say it’s okay. In other words, the Shulchan Aruch says that a person, an individual, may redeem a loved one with whatever is in his means. However, the next line in the Talmud quotes Abaye, who says, ‘Who says he did that with permission? Maybe he did it on his own against the wishes of the rabbis.’
“We’re left with that tension: Redeeming captives is incredibly important; we worry about the community but also about how to deal with individuals. Do we allow them to just do their own thing? And I would say that it’s left very much as an open question...
“I think it’s fairly clear from the sources that it is not all or nothing. There is a sensitivity as to when a price is too high.”
Barash cited Haaretz journalist Akiva Novick, who wrote this week – “and I think it’s a very important point – about a small percentage of religious families who are basically saying that they want their children back but are not willing to sacrifice the country. I do think there is a bit of a difference here – really, without judging – between the religious and the secular families on the issue.
“If I go back to Gilad Schalit, we saved one individual at the price of many others who were killed as a result of letting out over 1,000 prisoners for one captive. This was the beginning of why we are where we are.
“How much is one life worth? In Judaism, we say that one life is an entire world, an enormous amount, while on the other hand, we always have to be sensitive to the impact a situation like this will have on the klal.
“What Novick observed was that many of the hostages’ families, perhaps even the majority, are saying to bring them home at all costs, yet a small group of religious families, whose loved ones are hostages, are saying that releasing terrorists to bring their children home goes against their values and ideology. I know of at least three men who died in the war – two of them were definitely religious; I don’t think the third was – who had left letters saying that if they’re taken captive, they should not be redeemed in exchange for terrorists under any circumstances.
“I don’t want to add to the fracturing or the conflict in the country, but on the other hand, I think it’s important for those voices to be heard both for the Jewish halachic sense and because this question of the klal vs the prat [individual] is probably one of the biggest issues we’re facing in this generation.
“I’m not really taking a side here. I can’t do that. I don’t know where I’d be if, God forbid, I was in that situation, and I want to recognize the horror of it all,” she admitted. “But I do want to push back a little at ‘Bring them home at all costs’ – that’s less of a halachic position.”
Should Israel treat wounded terrorists?
The Magazine asked three rabbis – two Orthodox and one Reform – the same question: Should Israel treat wounded terrorists? These are there responses.
Rabbi Yuval Cherlow (Orthodox): “From a moral point of view, there is no obligation to treat the wounded enemy, as it is part of a war against those who are working to annihilate us. But due to the fact that this is an international norm and an agreement that the State of Israel has signed, and considering the obligation of the Israeli people to be part of the progress of the world and the desire to reduce bloodshed, we do provide basic care to the enemy’s wounded.”
Rabbi Reuven Taragin (Orthodox): Stressing that he was not giving a personal opinion but rather a halachic perspective, Taragin said, “A person who murders, especially a terrorist, deserves the death penalty; whether society enforces it or not is a separate question. Our sages tell us that people who have mercy on those who don’t deserve mercy end up being insensitive to those who do deserve mercy.
“There are three kinds of situations that the rabbis speak about that would be exceptions. One: If we want to keep the terrorist alive in order to question him or trade him. Two: Medical professionals have a commitment; they took an oath to treat all people. That’s a real commitment, and it applies to all people. Three: There’s international law. Once the would-be murderer is no longer threatening and has surrendered, the law states that he’s a prisoner and has certain rights to protection. The difference is that these situations apply more to medical professionals and the army as opposed to an individual. It means that if you’re an individual, and a terrorist has been shot, you wouldn’t be obligated to help him if you’re not a medical professional.”
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch (Reform): “Healthcare providers have an obligation to treat wounded people, even despicable terrorists assuming they no longer constitute an immediate danger, and the threat they pose has been neutralized. This is consistent with the oath taken by medical personnel, Jewish values, and international Western norms. Once treated, it is for the state – not the doctors – to punish the murderers. That said, terrorists need not be treated in Israeli hospitals if there are other places where they can receive adequate medical attention. If there are centers designated for prisoners and Israel’s enemies, and they could receive adequate medical attention there, they do not have to be treated in hospitals.”