לעלוי נשמת ר' אברהם בן ר' משה לנגנר (הרבי מסרעטען בטורונטו, נ' כב טבת תשכ')
Israel finds herself in a real ethical and practical dilemma: should this country be redeeming our hostages that are in Gaza, by releasing terrorists, including Jew-killers?
Although we Jews were without a country and an Army for 1900 years, the Talmud, Rishonim, Acharonim and Responsa literature is loaded with relevant information. I am no halakhic decisor, posek, and thus this short article will serve only to bring some of the pertinent sources and ideas. I'll be quoting from the Tzohar Ethics site (Hebrew), Rav Ovadiah Yosef 's Yabia Omer (volume 10, Choshen Mishpat chap. 6), and Rav Zvi Ryzman's Exploring Modern Halachic Dilemmas (volume 4, pp 296-318). All three sources deal with the famous, wondrous Entebbe rescue mission.
To start with Rav Ovadiah:
On the 29th Sivan , 5736 (June 27,1976), an Air France jet on its way from Paris to Tel Aviv was hijacked by two Palestinian Arab terrorists, and two German terrorists, to Entebbe, Uganda. There, the hijackers were met by three more PFLP terrorists, and were given a welcome by Ugandan dictator Ida Amin (a known שונא ישראל, Jew-hater) as well as his gift of 100 of Amin's soldiers to assist the hijackers. 148 non-Jewish hostages were released. This left 94 Jews and 12 crew members in the hands of the terrorists, who issued an ultimatum in which they demanded the release of 40 Arab terrorists from Israeli prison, as well as 13 terrorists from other countries. Israel was given 48 hours to release the terrorists; if Israel did not comply, the hijackers would start killing the hostages.
The Halakhic question was thus whether, or not, to release the imprisoned terrorists in order to save the lives of the Jewish hostages. The counterargument: this "deal" would open the door to further hostage-taking in order to extort the release of more jailed terrorists; also, these released prisoners would with near certainty return to their evil ways, to kill and murder Israeli men, women and children- in sum, in order to save the Jewish hostages from CERTAIN danger, the Israeli government would be exposing the Yishuv (country) to at least a POSSIBLE (me, with Oct.7, 2023 hindsight: probable?) danger.
Rav Ovadiah assembled an all-star cast of Gedolei Torah to consider the issue, including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Shaul Yisraeli and others, to scrutinize these issues.
The Tzohar Ethics site's treatment of the Halakhic problem begins with the Mishnah on Gittin 45a: "We do not redeem captives for more than their value; this ordinance was enacted for the benefit of society (תיקון העולם , tikkun Ha'olam)." The Gemara asks what is the basis of this Tikkun Haolam- is it so that these exorbitant ransom payments not impoverish the Jewish communities who were being forced to pay for their citizens; or is it so as not to encourage "the idolators" to capture more and more Jews. Since the Gemara reaches no conclusion, both reasons apply.
The Rishonim continue the debate: Tosafot (Gittin 58a, d'h Kol) say that it is allowed to ransom a hostage for more than his monetary worth, if the victim is in mortal danger. Ramban says no, that the Mishnah's prohibition is absolute, even if the hostage is faced with possible death.
Rav Ryzman notes that the issue of impoverishing does not exist when it comes to a nation, like Israel, being extorted. This leaves, of course, the problem of encouraging further terror and kidnapping. All three sources (also Tzohar and R. Ovadiah) examine this issue in depth, and should be studied in their original; I'll only quote a bit of Rav Ovadiah's work:
"Now in our case ( paragraph 4), it would seem to be prohibited to release these 40 terrorists to the hijackers, thus putting the whole country (Israel) into a condition of ספק סכנה , possible danger- even though we would be saving the 100 hostages (note the similarity to today's ethical dilemma, with the Gaza-Hamas hostages, a.h.). This is unlike the case that I (R.Ovadiah) quote (in paragraph 1) in which enemies demand of Jews to turn over to them ONE Jew, to be killed, or else they'll kill ALL the Jews in a city (Tosefta Trumot chap. 7, Halakha 23); the Jews should refuse, even if they are all killed- unless the man handed over is already liable to the death penalty, like Sheva ben Bichri (Shmuel b, chap 20). In such a case, the Jews can give over the one Jew. Talmud Yerushalmi says that this is the opinion of Reish Lakish, who argues with R. Yochanan; and Rambam surprisingly decides (paskens) like Reish Lakeish (Noda BeYehudah: we pasken like Rav Yochanan only in the Babylonian Talmud, not in his debates in the Talmud Yerushalmi).
This is a cruel act, פעולה אכזרית, of saving themselves by directly turning over the Jew to be murdered by bloodthirsty killers; thus, unless that Jew is a criminal like Sheva, the Jews are enjoined to be prepared to all die and NOT hand him over to CERTAIN death. However, the Entebbe deal is a pure act of הצלה , in order to save the 100 hostages- thus לא נעשתה פעולה המכוונת למישרים לרצח- the 'deal' is not an act that is intended to directly lead to murder. Even though this 'deal' does put the Yishuv (Israel) into a possible (probable?) danger, אין ספק מוציא מידי וודאי - a possibility does not trump a certainty. In this case ,the CERTAIN danger to the hostages overrides the POSSIBLE danger engendered by freeing terrorists (again, notice the similarity to our problem in January,2025)….again noting that it is not a CERTAINTY that the released Arab prisoners will return to commit murder in Israel."
In paragraph 14, Rav Ovadiah raises a fascinating issue: the Talmud Yerushalmi, end of 8th chapter of Terumot, tells that Reish Lakeish (again) endangers himself and rescues Rav Ami from killers (see R. Ovadiah, paragraph 6). The Hagahot Maymoniot therefore rules that a Jew is obligated to put himself in POSSIBLE life-threatening danger, in order to save his fellow Jew from CERTAIN danger.
This would say that the Nation should have no qualms about doing the deal to rescue the Gazan hostages. However, this is not the psak (law), as R. Ovadiah says that the דין (Law) is not like the H. Maimoniot, because one's own POSSIBLE danger DOES trump someone else's CERTAIN danger (as the Torah says :וחי אחיך עמך, חייך קודמים – in saving a life, one's own life comes before his friend's; Baba Metziah 62a , based on Vayikra 25, v. 36). Yet, R. Ovadiah concludes that this solution is only for the case of two people, one in danger, one (a possible savior) not; but in a case where a third party (such as the State of Israel) has the choice between saving a group in CERTAIN danger, and a group such as the general public of Israel that is only in POSSIBLE danger, one saves the person/s in CERTAIN danger ( i. e., the hostages).
(At this point R. Ovadiah brings up the Chazon Ish's ethical dilemma of whether to deflect an arrow/bomb about to strike a group of Jews and kill many of them into an innocent bystander. Chazon Ish allows the deflection. In ethics courses, many universities today teach an updated version of this problem, usually involving whether to switch an out-of-control train to another track and kill one victim instead of many. In any case, with the hindsight from 2025, that the head of Shabak, Ronen Bar, says that 82% of the 1,000 terrorists freed to ransom Gilad Shalit returned to terror - and that includes mass murderer Y. Sinwar - and thus it is not CERTAIN vs. POSSIBLE danger, but CERTAIN vs. PROBABLE danger- perhaps R. Ovadiah group's decision would today be different, to save rather the many instead of the few).
Before I write a entire book on this problem (Rabbi Ryzman just did just that), let's get to Rav Ovadiah's conclusion.It is worthwhile to read the last page, to realize the traditional Sephardi lyrical greatness of this Ish Halakhah (man of Jewish law); and to see that Rabin "paskened" first, preempting the Rabbis:
"There we were- Rabbis Elyashiv, Auerbach, Zolti, Goldshmidt, Yisraeli, Shaul ,etc.- and were about to send (note that the precise timing of this, whether the psak had already been sent or not, is fuzzy) our decision to PM Yitzchak Rabin and his cabinet, while they too sat in judgement. We Rabbis had decided: true, the freeing of these 40 terrorists carries with it many dangers, but being that the Jewish hostages are in mortal danger NOW (my emphasis), the Halakhah says that the threat to the hostages trumps the danger in freeing terrorists.Thus the Government of Israel should negotiate with the hostage-takers and do all that it can to save the hostage-captives from the mortal danger that hovers over their heads. And may the Lord Almighty help us to listen to the cries of the imprisoned, and may no more kidnappings and crisis be heard of in our borders…
"As we prepared this answer, Behold! The Prime Minister appeared at our door. Rabin announced the joyous news: all 100 hostages had been freed by the IDF, which had killed all the evil kidnappers and many of their Ugandan helpers. Praise to the Almighty, IDF and former hostages were all on their way home to Eretz Yisrael. Praise the Lord who magnified His Good and His wonders for us. All the ends of the Earth has seen the salvation of the Lord (Psalms 98:3- I hear the Carlebach tune when I see the words ראו כל אפסי ארץ את ישועת אלקינו ). All the nations saw and were astounded at the Gevura (might) of Israel, who were swifter than eagles and stronger than lions, accomplishing great things to save (with the help of the Lord Almighty) those who were in the hands of Death, bringing the 100 hostages to the Land of Israel in joy and song…"
Rabbi Ryzman adds two further notes: not all the Rabbis were in agreement that day. Since there was a minority who felt it wrong to free the terrorists (and thus encourage future kidnappings, as per the Gittin 45a that we began with) , the Steipler Gaon felt that the government was free to not negotiate with the hostage-takers. Rav Zoldan similarly felt that the government was free to decide along practical, military lines of thought.
I will end with this: again, this is all merely food for thought, not a psak. It seems plain to me the G-d paskened like the Steipler. Yet, even Rav Ovadiah did mention (paragraph 23) חשש סכנה לעתיד, "the possibility that this will only encourage terrorists, who will conclude: 'we have the upper hand, and will now hijack even more planes, kidnap more Jews' and come to the Jews with even more exaggerated demands."
Of course, History bears this out: instead of 40 terrorists for 106 Entebbe hostages, we've now got demands in the 1,000's and demands to halt IDF actions. There is thus no guarantee that the psak of R. Ovadiah and the Gedolei Hador of his time, would be the same in 2025.
Personally, I think, not.
'
.