Halachic Reasons to be against the Shalit for Terrorists Deal

[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:

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".

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

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.
.

[edu]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/3453
David Bedein in this radio show talks about other not dangerous options to free Shalit.
Ceratin Corporations had a huge interest in funding this Shalit swap in order not to harm their financial interests from better solutions.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

 Indeed only a moron would think that.  I can't believe some of the idiotic thinking I've heard from people trying to defend the Shalit deal.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/3453
David Bedein in this radio show talks about other not dangerous options to free Shalit.
Ceratin Corporations had a huge interest in funding this Shalit swap in order not to harm their financial interests from better solutions.

What is ceratin corporations?

[edu]

According to the David Bedein radio show
Dor Alon - A huge Gas/Fuel Company in Israel
Nesher - A huge conglomerate in the cement industry in israel
and Tnuva - a huge company in the dairy industry in Israel
financed the free Gilad Shalit on the Terms of Hamas campaign.
Listen to the show for more details.

[muman613]

According to the David Bedein radio show
Dor Alon - A huge Gas/Fuel Company in Israel
Nesher - A huge conglomerate in the cement industry in israel
and Tnuva - a huge company in the dairy industry in Israel
financed the free Gilad Shalit on the Terms of Hamas campaign.
Listen to the show for more details.

I heard about this the other day.... I think there was an article on A7 about it... I did not read it in depth but it sounded like the company which Shalits father worked for also supported the 'free Shalit' movement.

[edu]

In an article at http://www.ocjewish.com/media/pdf/505/hUtX5059074.pdf
I came across an interesting precedent and the halachic ruling of Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzsky, who by Charedi standards was considered the #2 Gadol in America after Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzsky, argues that Israel has been in a constant state of war from a Halachic
perspective since the establishment of the state. Rav Yaakov accordingly ruled in 1970 that it
was forbidden to ransom the great Rav Yitzchak Hutner, who was being held captive by Arab
terrorists who had hijacked the airplane on which he was a passenger. There was a suggestion
to offer a huge sum to ransom Rav Hutner, since Tosafot (Gittin 58a) permit paying an
exorbitant sum to save a great Rav. Rav Yaakov ruled that Tosafot's permission applies only
during peacetime. Since Israel's ongoing struggle with terrorism constitutes a war, Rav Yaakov
felt it was forbidden to ransom even one as great as Rav Hutner.

Although I was against the deal even before seeing Rabbi Kaminetzsky's ruling, it still is good to quote, because Some Charedi readers will appreciate our position more, if we quote one Big Rabbi that they Respect.

On  a separate point, does anyone know of any Rabbi who not only criticized the Shalit deal, but also publicly criticized those Rabbis who have shown support for this surrender to terrorism?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

According to the David Bedein radio show
Dor Alon - A huge Gas/Fuel Company in Israel
Nesher - A huge conglomerate in the cement industry in israel
and Tnuva - a huge company in the dairy industry in Israel
financed the free Gilad Shalit on the Terms of Hamas campaign.
Listen to the show for more details.

If you wouldn't mind, could you briefly explain what their financial interest was that would/could have been harmed.   Very interesting quote from Rav Yaakov.

Ironically, I know some haredim who resorted to quoting from present-day mamlachti religious zionist socalled rabbi to defend the shalit deal because it feels good and it has to be that we feel good about what "Hashem does" in the world.   (They also weren't aware that this particular rabbi they quoted is a menuval who abused students.  I reminded them of the principle of free will - can't "blame" God for a stupid decision, and I informed them of this "rabbi's" status).

[edu]

Because I have noticed some confusion unfortunately even by rabbis, on this issue, so I looked for a
pre-recorded audio lecture, that would explain this issue, perhaps in a more appealing format than I have done.
I found a reasonable presentation by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed made in 5754 [1994] on this subject, although it is in Hebrew
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/video/?aid=1986

[edu]

One point of clarification about Rabbi Melamed's lecture. After Rabbi Melamed explains why the mass release of terrorists to save a few soldiers or civilians is forbidden, he goes on to talk about the limit of what we can do to save our soldiers if saving them through warfare is not an option.
The limit he says is that we can trade one of them for one of ours.
He also said after the war is over and an official cease fire goes into effect, then we can exchange even a large amount of our prisoners to get the smaller number of prisoners that the enemy holds.
I myself require further study before, I am willing to state an opinion on these 2 issues.
So don't misunderstand me, I quoted Rabbi Melamed, for further support on the issue of Shalit for Terrorists.
The endorsement does not necessarily extend to other issues.

[edu]

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that also the Charedi Rabbi, Rav Moshe Sternbuch , Rosh Av Bais of Yerushalayim also explicitly condemned the Shalit for 1000+ Terrorists deal
Here's a link for someone who wishes to read his arguments on the subject
http://www.yatedneeman.com/content.asp?contentid=488

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I was pleasantly surprised to find out that also the Charedi Rabbi, Rav Moshe Sternbuch , Rosh Av Bais of Yerushalayim also explicitly condemned the Shalit for 1000+ Terrorists deal
Here's a link for someone who wishes to read his arguments on the subject
http://www.yatedneeman.com/content.asp?contentid=488

Indeed I read that in my hosts yated this shabbat.
On the other side of the page appeared caroline glick's article which was also quite good although not a rabbinic analysis obviously.

There is a slight problem with something in Rav Shternbuch's article but maybe later I'll go into this.

[edu]

Another member of this forum has brought in a separate posting more halachic sources from Rabbi David Bar-Hayim on the Shalit deal
If for whatever reason, one might have trouble locating  that separate posting on the jtf forum, you can go directly to the machonshilo.org web site (Rabbi David Bar-Hayim's site) and do a search for the term: gilad shalit to get to the sources.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/component/content/article/34-featured/569-the-gilad-shalit-deal-an-authentically-jewish-perspective-01

http://machonshilo.org/en/eng/component/content/article/34-featured/570-the-gilad-shalit-deal-an-authentically-jewish-perspective-02

[edu]

A Quote from
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149902#.TsicoVYU9Qg

Shalit Deal Terrorist' Wounded, in IDF Hands
A terrorist released in Shalit deal was reportedly wounded when he engaged in more terror.
By Gil Ronen
First Publish: 11/19/2011, 11:00 PM

A terrorist released in the Shalit deal is reportedly hospitalized and under IDF guard.

According to the family of a Jewish man hospitalized at Hadassah in Jerusalem, he has recently had to share his room with a terrorist who was apparently shot in the course of IDF counter-terror activity. The terrorist is under constant police and IDF guard.
The relatives told Arutz Sheva that they have been told that the terrorist was freed in the recent Shalit deal, and was recaptured after engaging in terror activity against Israel. This claim is currently uncorroborated.

The family members claim that the Arab man often behaves in a rowdy fashion and shouts in Arabic. They want him removed from the room.
The Jewish man was brought to the room for recovery from an operation for intestinal cancer. A few days later, the terrorist was wheeled in and he has had to suffer his presence ever since.

The Jewish man's grandson said: "I think it is madness to hold this terrorist in the same room as my grandfather. This is a terrorist with the blood of Jews on his hands – the family is having a hard time dealing with the presence of this thing in our room. I don’t understand – where is the hospital's sensitivity?"
Arutz Sheva has not yet received a response from Hadassah Hospital.

I think it is important to constantly point out the suffering that the Shalit deal has brought and will bring in order to wake up those sentimental fools from their dream world, that contended there was no real danger to the community by releasing one thousand terrorists.

[edu]

From http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=246811
Report: Schalit swap prisoners wish to return to terror
By JPOST.COM STAFF
11/24/2011 11:22
  Several of the terrorists released in the prisoner exchange for Gilad Schalit expressed a willingness to return to terror, according to a publication released by the Intelligence and Information Center, Israel Radio reported Thursday.

A number of them also reportedly called for the kidnapping of more Israeli citizens.

The freed terrorists added that they were enjoying great prestige in Palestinian society, the publication stated.

[edu]

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/764877/Rabbi_Aryeh_Lebowitz/Ten_Minute_Halacha_-_Prisoner_Exchanges_in_Halacha
By means of Rabbi Bar Hayyim's web site, I found still another audio (this one in english) that goes into halachic detail why the Shalit deal was forbidden. I posted the link to the lecture above.

The lecturer is Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz and he also claims Rabbi Hershel Schachter was against the deal.
The lecture is a little bit less than 20 minutes.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

By means of Rabbi Bar Hayyim's web site, I found still another audio (this one in english)

 Where did you see that?

[edu]

To answer Tag-MahirTzedek
In the article: The Shalit Deal and the Dati Leumi world at:

http://machonshilo.org/en/images/stories/files/573_MBM-Shalit%20deal%20and%20dati%20leumi%20world.pdf