Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea

Halachic Reasons to be against the Shalit for Terrorists Deal

(1/5) > >>

edu:
I will start with Rabbi Avraham Kook's statement in Chazon Hageula page 222
He states that the conquest of the land of Israel is equivalent in importance to all the other mitzvas of the Torah {combined}. He states that according to the essential or main law, the Torah obligated us to engage in this mitzva even by engaging in war. And by natural rules, in a war there is continually a danger to life. And all the mitzvas of the Torah it is written regarding them and "you shall live by them". which is not the case for the conquest of the land.
Comment this means to say that saving a Jewish life is not the ultimate consideration when we have a situation of the war to conquer the land of Israel. The ultimate consideration is: does this action harm or hurt the war effort.
The Gilad Shalit deal will hurt the war effort. Here is just a small sample of web sites for those who need to be convinced.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=1845&IID=2498
http://www.al-magor.com/english.htm

edu:
I am going now to repeat what I brought up in a different thread to show that there is a mitzva to fight, just as David fought in the biblical book of Shmuel/Samuel to protect the border from the theft of straw by the Gentiles, if there is good reason to believe, that by not putting up a fight, this will leave the community open to invasion and conquest by the enemy. This rule applies even on the Sabbath and even outside the land of Israel and even when there is a potential danger of a single Jewish soldier being killed, when he rushes to defend the straw from theft.
Any one with any brains in their head, should realize that the release of a thousand terrorists {for Shalit} is a greater Danger to the border than just losing control of some stored straw to Gentile Robbers.
Now Here is the quote:

--- Quote ---In Shulchan Aruch, siman 329, we find the mitzva to desecrate the Sabbath for the sake of saving lives, applies when the Gentiles come to take wheat stalks or straw from a city which is located in an area where it is easy from there, to conquer the land; this is a point of law directed towards every individual citizen and not just, specifically for the government.
    And this ruling is taught in Eruvin page 45.
    Now in Eruvin we learn that David [according to the Netziv in Meromei Sadeh ] who was not yet a king, rather an individual citizen, had a mitzva to desecrate the Sabbath for the sake of saving lives by the mere fact that he would save the wheat stalks and straw of Ke’ilah [ a border city ]; and he did not have an exemption from the fact that there was already an army and a government in Israel at that time [ the kingdom of Shaul {Saul} ]. That is to say, the fact that the army and the kingdom are present is not a reason to exempt the individual from saving from the Gentiles when they come to take wheat stalks and straw from the border city. And how much more so, there is no reason to exempt an individual when the Gentiles come at the outset with the intention to kill and conquer.
    And so it is implied to me from the Tur, O.C., siman 329, that the mitzva is upon every man and not just upon the government and this is a translated quote: "And in a city that is close to the border, even if they have only come on account of money, we desecrate Sabbath because of them, and so too on account of a ship that is in danger of sinking in the sea or on account of a powerful river flooding, it is a mitzva for every person to save them and desecrate [Sabbath] on their behalf".
--- End quote ---

Rabbi Meir Kahane, in chapter 13 of Ohr Haraayon , the chapter on War and Peace, explicitly spells out that this mitzvah of going out on Shabbat, to protect the wheat stalks and the straw, from Robbers, when there is a danger of possible invasion, is all part of the broader Mitzva of fighting a Defensive War against an enemy that comes to attack the Jewish people.

That is to say that one should not try to fool themselves, that the only reason David fought to protect Ke’ilah [ a border city ] was that he believed that he was guaranteed by G-d that no danger at all would come to any of his soldiers.

edu:
Radbaz Vol.3, siman 627 deals with the question, what if the Gentile Government says, allow me to amputate, one of your limbs that is not a vital, life threatening body limb or I will kill your fellow Israelite. Are you obligated to do so or not?
He answers that occasionally even amputating that type of limb can lead to death. He gives an example of someone who had his ear scratched to take out blood from it, and the guy ended up bleeding to death.
He further adds that although one is obligated to spend money to save a Jew, one is not obligated to risk his limbs. He adds the Torah's ways are the ways of pleasantness and the laws of the Torah have to be acceptable by the intellect, and logic dictates, how could it possibly be, that a man let his eye be blinded or hand or leg cut off, in order that his friend won't be put to death.
His conclusion is that it might be an act of piety beyond the strict requirement of the law, and praiseworthy if one that can stand by this measure, but it is not required. Furthermore he states if there is a real doubt {as opposed to an unlikely doubt} that the one who offers his limb can die from it, then in that situation one is called a pious fool {that is to say, he is doing something wrong) by sacrificing himself for the other person. For doubt that he personally will come to danger takes precedent over the definite danger of his friend.
In the case of Shalit, the prisoner exchange put the public in definite danger, while Shalit, was only in possible danger (since the Terrorists wanted him alive, with the hope that one day the Government would cave in to their demands, which indeed took place).
In a previous post, I provided 2 links to show, how similar deals in the past led to the murder of many Jews.

muman613:
I agree that Halacha is overwhelmingly against this type of deal. I had posted the halachic reasons against it last year... I will see if I can find what I wrote then...

muman613:
Here is a thread I started in May of this year:

Free Schalit at Any Price? I say NO NO NO! : http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,55361.0.html



--- Quote ---http://www.closetotorah.com/2010/11/modern-day-ransoms-too-high-a-price-a-halachic-perspective/

Modern-Day Ransoms: Too High a Price?
A Halachic Perspective
by Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer

One of the most tragic and delicate halahcic questions of the modern day, which must be addressed both by halachic decisors and by political leaders of the State of Israel, is the question of redeeming soldiers or civilians that are taken hostage by terrorist groups. Invariably, the demands of terrorists include the release of imprisoned terrorists, who generally await their return to their former profession. What does halachah have to say on this matter? Can the monetary ransom demanded by conventional captors be compared with the modern-day requests for release of terrorists? Indeed, how would the demand for monetary payment be seen in today’s halachic eye. Inspired by this week’s parashah, which chronicles the most famous case of ‘kidnapping’ in the history of the world–the sale of Yosef to Egypt–we seek to address these issues in this week’s article.

Our Parashah includes the description of what is surely the most famous ‘kidnapping’ in history: The snatching of Yosef by his brothers, and his subsequent sale to the Egypt-bound group of Ishmaelites. It was this fateful episode that led to the descent of our entire nation to Egypt, the exile and hardships it went on to experience, and, ultimately, the miraculous redemption in the hands of G-d.

We will take the opportunity to dwell on the halachic aspects of captors and captives, and, in particular, the delicate questions of how to react to captors’ demands for ransoms in exchange for freeing their prisoner.

Throughout the generations, both halachic and historical literature reveal how Jews, in their various countries of exile, suffered greatly from bandits, who found a way to make easy income by capturing Jews and demanding exorbitant ransom money. At certain times, this ploy for making money was employed not only by vagabond anarchists, but even by state machinery. State coffers could be filled by fabricating legal cases against Jews, in order to demand money for their release.

Today, the question of redeeming captives remains tragic, difficult, and very delicate. Instead of money, the demand of modern kidnappers, namely terrorist groups who capture soldiers or civilians, is the release of terrorists.

This, of course, presents a terrible dilemma to decision-makers: The life and freedom of every Jew is priceless, but practically, how much should we be prepared to pay? Is the release of murderers, who are most likely to return to their previous ‘occupation’, justified halachically? In this article we will try and discuss this question.

Paying More than the Captive’s Value

The Gemara teaches that the mitzvah of redeeming captives from their captivity is a “great mitzvah,” a term reserved for only a number of mitzvos. Based on its unique importance, the redemption of captives is given first priority when allocating charity money. In the words of Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 252:1), “No mitzvah is as great as the redemption of captives.”

The Gemara also highlights the dire plight of the captive, who finds himself at the mercy of his captors, who are liable to torture him, place him through unspoken suffering, and even kill him. Shulchan Aruch (252:3) thus writes that he who is able to redeem a captive, yet fails to do so, is considered to be a murderer.

Nevertheless, the Mishnah (Gittin 45a) teaches that captives should not redeem for any price: “Captives are not redeemed for more than their value.” The reason for this is discussed by the Gemara, which mentions two possible reasons. One is that it would prove too weighty a load on the community. According to this reason, a private individual is permitted to redeem his own family or loved ones, even for great sums of money.


Another suggested reason, is that payment of large sums of money would encourage captors to continue in their evil ways, taking as many captives as possible, for the purpose of making quick and easy riches. According to this rationale, even a private individual would not be permitted to use his personal wealth in order to pay exorbitant sums for the release of his relatives.
.
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page