War and Peace VII ~ Captives at any cost?

(ד) עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ, אִם לְשׁוּם עֶבֶד, יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. אִם לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתִיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ, שׁוּרַת הַדִּין, אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר:

(ה) מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין. בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עָבֶד. יִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וְלִרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה) לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי:

(ו) הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹי אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, יָצָא בֶן חוֹרִין. אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִים סְפָרִים, תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִם יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

(4) A [non-Jewish] slave [of a Jew] was taken captive and then ransomed [by a third party]: If [he is ransomed] to be a slave he goes back to slavery, If [he is ransomed] as a free man he does not go back to slavery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in either case he goes back to slavery. If a man makes his slave a pledge [for a debt] to another man and then he emancipates him, according to the “letter of the law” the slave is not liable to do anything. But because of tikkun olam we force his [second] master to emancipate him and he [the slave] writes a document for his purchase price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the slave does not write the document but rather the one who emancipates him.

(5) One who is half a slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: you have set things right for the master but you have not set things right for the slave. He cannot marry a female slave because he is already half free, and he cannot marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then decease [from having children]? But wasn’t the world only made to be populated, as it says, “He did not create it as a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather because of tikkun olam we compel his master to emancipate him and he writes a document for half his purchase price. Beth Hillel retracted [their opinion and] ruled like Beth Shammai.

(6) If a man sells his slave to a Gentile or [to someone living] outside the land [of Israel] the slave goes free. Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, because of tikkun olam. Captives should not be helped to escape, because of tikkun olam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says [that the reason is] to prevent the ill-treatment of fellow captives. Torah scrolls of the law, tefillin and mezuzoth are not bought from Gentiles at more than their value, because of tikkun olam.

מתני׳ אין פודין את השבויין יתר על כדי דמיהן מפני תיקון העולם ואין מבריחין את השבויין מפני תיקון העולם רשב"ג אומר מפני תקנת השבויין: גמ׳ איבעיא להו האי מפני תיקון העולם משום דוחקא דצבורא הוא או דילמא משום דלא לגרבו ולייתו טפי ת"ש דלוי בר דרגא פרקא לברתיה בתליסר אלפי דינרי זהב אמר אביי ומאן לימא לן דברצון חכמים עבד דילמא שלא ברצון חכמים עבד: ואין מבריחין את השבויין מפני תיקון העולם רשב"ג אומר מפני תקנת שבויין: מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דליכא אלא חד: בנתיה דרב נחמן בחשן קדרא בידייהו קשיא ליה לרב עיליש כתיב (קהלת ז, כח) אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי ואשה בכל אלה לא מצאתי הא איכא בנתיה דרב נחמן גרמא להו מילתא ואשתביין ואישתבאי איהו נמי בהדייהו יומא חד הוה יתיב גביה ההוא גברא דהוה ידע בלישנא דציפורי אתא עורבא וקא קרי ליה אמר ליה מאי קאמר אמר ליה עיליש ברח עיליש ברח אמר עורבא שיקרא הוא ולא סמיכנא עליה אדהכי אתא יונה וקא קריא אמר ליה מאי קאמרה א"ל עיליש ברח עיליש ברח אמר כנסת ישראל כיונה מתילא ש"מ מתרחיש לי ניסא אמר איזיל אחזי בנתיה דרב נחמן אי קיימן בהימנותייהו אהדרינהו אמר נשי כל מילי דאית להו סדרן להדדי בבית הכסא שמעינהו דקאמרן עדי גוברין ונהרדעי גוברין לימא להו לשבוייהו דלירחקינהו מהכא דלא ליתו אינשין ולישמעי וליפרקינן קם ערק אתא איהו וההוא גברא לדידיה איתרחיש ליה ניסא עבר במברא וההוא גברא אשכחוה וקטלוה כי הדרן ואתן אמר הוו קא בחשן קידרא בכשפים:
MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world; and one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors for the betterment of the world, so that kidnappers will not be more restrictive with their captives to prevent them from escaping. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives, so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum. Abaye said: And who told us that he acted in accordance with the wishes of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the wishes of the Sages, and this anecdote cannot serve as a proof. The mishna taught: And one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors, for the betterment of the world. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when there is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive’s escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive to begin with, one may help him to escape. If it was instituted so that kidnappers in general will not act restrictively with their captives, it would be prohibited in this case as well. § The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman’s daughters would stir a boiling pot with their bare hands, and people thought that the heat did not harm them due to their righteousness. Rav Ilish had a difficulty with a verse, as it is written: “A man one of a thousand I have found, and a woman among all those have I not found” (Ecclesiastes 7:28). Aren’t there Rav Naḥman’s daughters, who were exceptionally righteous? These words caused them to be taken captive, due to the evil eye, and Rav Ilish was also taken captive with them. One day a certain man was sitting with him in captivity who knew the language of birds. A raven came and called to Rav Ilish. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is the raven saying? He said to him that it is saying: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Rav Ilish said: It is a lying raven, and I do not rely on it. In the meantime, a dove came and was calling out. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is it saying? He said to him that the dove said: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Ilish said: The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove; I conclude from the dove’s words that a miracle will happen for me, and I can attempt to escape. Rav Ilish said: Before I leave, I will go and I will see Rav Naḥman’s daughters. If they remained steadfast in their faith and are acting appropriately, then I will take them with me and I will return them to their home. He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde’a to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors. Upon hearing this Rav Ilish arose and escaped. He and that man who knew the language of the birds came to a river crossing. A miracle happened for him and he crossed the river on a ferry, and the captors found that man and killed him. When Rav Naḥman’s daughters were returned and they came back from their captivity, Rav Ilish said: They would stir the pot with witchcraft, and that is why they were not burned by the boiling pot, but it was not due to their righteousness.
ת"ר מעשה ברבי יהושע בן חנניה שהלך לכרך גדול שברומי אמרו לו תינוק אחד יש בבית האסורים יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים הלך ועמד על פתח בית האסורים אמר (ישעיהו מב, כד) מי נתן למשיסה יעקב וישראל לבוזזים ענה אותו תינוק ואמר הלא ה' זו חטאנו לו ולא אבו בדרכיו הלוך ולא שמעו בתורתו אמר מובטחני בו שמורה הוראה בישראל העבודה שאיני זז מכאן עד שאפדנו בכל ממון שפוסקין עליו אמרו לא זז משם עד שפדאו בממון הרבה ולא היו ימים מועטין עד שהורה הוראה בישראל ומנו רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע
The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?” Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha.
אמר ליה רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן דפדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא א"ל דכתיב (ירמיהו טו, ב) והיה כי יאמרו אליך אנה נצא ואמרת אליהם כה אמר ה' אשר למות למות ואשר לחרב לחרב ואשר לרעב לרעב ואשר לשבי לשבי ואמר רבי יוחנן כל המאוחר בפסוק זה קשה מחבירו חרב קשה ממות אי בעית אימא קרא ואי בעית אימא סברא אי בעית אימא סברא האי קא מינוול והאי לא קא מינוול ואי בעית אימא קרא (תהלים קטז, טו) יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו רעב קשה מחרב איבעית אימא סברא האי קא מצטער והאי לא קא מצטער איבעית אימא קרא (איכה ד, ט) טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב שבי [קשה מכולם] דכולהו איתנהו ביה:
Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: Concerning this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is it derived? Rabba bar Mari said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” (Jeremiah 15:2). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whichever punishment is written later in this verse is more severe than the one before it. Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The sword is worse than death. If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by way of logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This punishment, i.e., death by sword, mutilates the body, but that punishment, i.e., natural death, does not mutilate it. And if you wish, say that the fact that the sword is worse than death is learned from a verse: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15). Famine is worse than the sword. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This one, who dies of famine, suffers greatly before departing from this world, but that one, who dies by the sword, does not suffer. If you wish, say instead that the fact that famine is worse than the sword is learned from a verse: “More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of famine” (Lamentations 4:9). And captivity is worse than all of them, as it includes all of them, i.e., famine, the sword, and death.
נשבית חייב לפדותה וכו': ת"ר נשבית בחיי בעלה ואח"כ מת בעלה הכיר בה בעלה יורשין חייבין לפדותה לא הכיר בה בעלה אין יורשין חייבין לפדותה לוי סבר למיעבד עובדא כי הא מתניתא א"ל רב הכי אמר חביבי לית הלכתא כי הא מתניתא אלא כי הא דתניא נשבית לאחר מיתת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה ולא עוד אלא אפילו נשבית בחיי בעלה ואחר כך מת בעלה אין היתומין חייבין לפדותה שאין אני קורא בה ואותבינך לאינתו תנו רבנן נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהם מפני תקון העולם הא בכדי דמיהן פודין אע"ג דפרקונה יותר על כתובתה
§ The mishna taught that if she was taken captive, her husband is obligated to redeem her. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a wife who was taken captive in her husband’s lifetime and afterward her husband died before he could redeem her, if her husband was aware of her captivity, the heirs are obligated to redeem her, but if her husband was not aware of her captivity, his heirs are not obligated to redeem her. The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with this baraita. Rav said to him: My uncle [ḥavivi], Rabbi Ḥiyya, said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with this baraita. Rather, it is in accordance with that which is taught in a different baraita: If she was taken captive after the death of her husband, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her. And moreover, even if she was taken captive in her husband’s lifetime and he heard about it, and afterward her husband died, the orphans are not obligated to redeem her, as I cannot apply to her the clause in the marriage contract: And I will restore you to me as a wife. Since this stipulation cannot be fulfilled, the obligation to redeem her does not apply. § The Sages taught: If she was taken captive and they were seeking ransom from her husband of up to ten times her value, i.e., far more than the usual ransom for a captive of this kind, on the first occasion she is taken captive he must redeem her. From this point forward, i.e., if she was taken captive a second time, if he wants to, he redeems her, but if he does not want to redeem her, he does not have to redeem her, as the Sages obligated him to redeem her only once. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One does not redeem captives at more than their value. This policy is for the betterment of the world, because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom in accordance with their actual value one does redeem captives, even though this includes a case where a woman’s redemption is more than her marriage contract.

(י) פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים קוֹדֵם לְפַרְנָסַת עֲנִיִּים וְלִכְסוּתָן. וְאֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים שֶׁהַשָּׁבוּי הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל הָרְעֵבִים וְהַצְּמֵאִים וַעֲרוּמִּים וְעוֹמֵד בְּסַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהַמַּעֲלִים עֵינָיו מִפִּדְיוֹנוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר עַל (דברים טו ז) "לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ" וְעַל (ויקרא יט טז) "לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ" וְעַל (ויקרא כה נג) "לֹא יִרְדֶּנּוּ בְּפֶרֶךְ לְעֵינֶיךָ". וּבִטֵּל מִצְוַת (דברים טו ח) (דברים טו יא) "פָתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לוֹ". וּמִצְוַת (ויקרא כה לו) "וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ". (ויקרא יט יח) "וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ". (משלי כד יא) "וְהַצֵּל לְקֻחִים לַמָּוֶת" וְהַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים כָּאֵלּוּ. וְאֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה רַבָּה כְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים:

(יא) אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר שֶׁגָּבוּ מָעוֹת לְבִנְיַן בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת וּבָא לָהֶן דְּבַר מִצְוָה מוֹצִיאִין בּוֹ הַמָּעוֹת. קָנוּ אֲבָנִים וְקוֹרוֹת לֹא יִמְכְּרוּם לִדְבַר מִצְוָה אֶלָּא לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ אֶת הָאֲבָנִים וּגְדָרוּם וְאֶת הַקּוֹרוֹת וּפְסָלוּם וְהִתְקִינוּ הַכּל לַבִּנְיָן מוֹכְרִין הַכּל לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים בִּלְבַד. אֲבָל אִם בָּנוּ וְגָמְרוּ לֹא יִמְכְּרוּ אֶת בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת אֶלָּא יִגְבּוּ לְפִדְיוֹנָן מִן הַצִּבּוּר:

(יב) אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים בְּיֶתֶר עַל דְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים רוֹדְפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם לִשְׁבּוֹתָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים מַכְבִּידִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הָעל וּמַרְבִּים בִּשְׁמִירָתָן:

(יג) מִי שֶׁמָּכַר עַצְמוֹ וּבָנָיו לְעַכּוּ''ם אוֹ שֶׁלָּוָה מֵהֶן וְשָׁבוּ אוֹתָן אוֹ אֲסָרוּהוּ בְּהַלְוָאָתָן. פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה מִצְוָה לִפְדּוֹתָן. שְׁלִישִׁית אֵין פּוֹדִין אוֹתָן. אֲבָל פּוֹדִין אֶת הַבָּנִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. וְאִם בִּקְּשׁוּהוּ לְהָרְגוֹ פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדָם אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים:

(יד) עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה הוֹאִיל וְטָבַל לְשֵׁם עַבְדוּת וְקִבֵּל עָלָיו מִצְוֹת פּוֹדִין אוֹתוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה. וְשָׁבוּי שֶׁהֵמִיר לְעַכּוּ''ם וַאֲפִלּוּ לְמִצְוָה אַחַת כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל נְבֵלָה לְהַכְעִיס וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ אָסוּר לִפְדּוֹתוֹ:

(טו) הָאִשָּׁה קוֹדֶמֶת לְאִישׁ לְהַאֲכִיל וְלִכְסוּת וּלְהוֹצִיא מִבֵּית הַשֶּׁבִי. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאִישׁ דַּרְכּוֹ לְחַזֵּר לֹא הָאִשָּׁה וּבָשְׁתָּהּ מְרֻבָּה. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּשִּׁבְיָה וְנִתְבְּעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן לִדְבַר עֲבֵרָה הָאִישׁ קוֹדֵם לִפְדּוֹת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְכָךְ:

(טז) יָתוֹם וִיתוֹמָה שֶׁבָּאוּ לְהַשִּׂיא אוֹתָן מַשִּׂיאִין הָאִשָּׁה קֹדֶם לָאִישׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּשְׁתָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה מְרֻבָּה. וְלֹא יִפְחֲתוּ לָהּ מִמִּשְׁקַל שִׁשָּׁה דִּינָרִים וּרְבִיעַ דִּינָר שֶׁל כֶּסֶף טָהוֹר. וְאִם יֵשׁ בְּכִיס שֶׁל צְדָקָה נוֹתְנִין לָהּ לְפִי כְּבוֹדָהּ:

(יז) הָיוּ לְפָנֵינוּ עֲנִיִּים הַרְבֵּה אוֹ שְׁבוּיִים הַרְבֵּה וְאֵין בַּכִּיס כְּדֵי לְפַרְנֵס אוֹ כְּדֵי לְכַסּוֹת אוֹ כְּדֵי לִפְדּוֹת אֶת כֻּלָּן. מַקְדִּימִין אֶת הַכֹּהֵן לַלֵּוִי. וְלֵוִי לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְחָלָל. וְחָלָל לִשְׁתוּקִי. וּשְׁתוּקִי לַאֲסוּפִי. וַאֲסוּפִי לְמַמְזֵר. וּמַמְזֵר לְנָתִין. וְנָתִין לְגֵר. שֶׁהַנָּתִין גָּדַל עִמָּנוּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה. וְגֵר קוֹדֵם לְעֶבֶד מְשֻׁחְרָר. לְפִי שֶׁהָיָה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר:

(יח) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין בְּחָכְמָה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עַם הָאָרֶץ וּמַמְזֵר תַּלְמִיד חָכָם. תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם. וְכָל הַגָּדוֹל בְּחָכְמָה קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ. וְאִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן רַבּוֹ אוֹ אָבִיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם גָּדוֹל מֵהֶן בְּחָכְמָה. רַבּוֹ אוֹ אָבִיו שֶׁהוּא תַּלְמִיד חָכָם קוֹדֵם לָזֶה שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מֵהֶם בְּחָכְמָה:

(10) The redemption of captives held for ransom takes precedence over sustaining the poor and clothing them. You do not find a mitzvah greater than the redemption of captives, for captivity is in the same category as famine, drought, or exposure, and one stands in danger to one's life. One who averts his eyes from redeeming [the captive] transgresses [the commandment], (Deut. 15:7) Do not harden your heart and shut your hand, and (Lev. 19:16) Do not stand upon the blood of your neighbor, and (Lev. 25:53) He shall not rule ruthlessly over him in your sight, and nullifies the commandment (Deut. 15:8) You must open your hand, and the commandment, (Lev. 25:36) Let him live by your side as your kinsman, and (Lev. 19:18) Love your fellow as yourself, and (Proverbs 24:11) If you refrained from rescuing those taken off to death, [those condemned to slaughter--if you say, "We knew nothing of it," surely He who fathoms hearts will discern], and many such sayings. You cannot find a greater mitzvah than the redemption of captives.153See Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 8a-b on the importance of redeeming captives and Chullin 7a where Rabbi Phineas ben Yair travels to redeem captives and, on the way, a river parts for him, enabling him to pass through on dry land to fulfill his duty.

(11) If people of a city have collected money for the building of a synagogue, and a matter of a mitzvah comes before them, they should use the money [for the mitzvah]. But if they already purchased stones and beams, they should only sell them in the case of redeeming captives. Even if they have brought the stones and made walls of them, beams and laid them out, they sell it all for the sake of redeeming captives and that alone, but if they have built and completed [the synagogue], they do not sell the synagogue. Rather, they collect for their [the captives'] redemption from the public.154On the public collection of charity, see Babylonian Talmud Bava Batra 8b.

(12) They may not redeem the captives for more than their worth for the sake of civilization, so that the enemies will not pursue after them to enslave them [once they find out they are will to pay anything]. And they do not try to make the captives escape for the sake of civilization, so that the enemies will not increase the weight of their yoke and add more guards.155See Mishnah Gittin 4:6. The translation "for the sake of civilization" is used to try to capture the nuance that there is a duty to make the world a less chaotic and dangerous place.

(13) He who sells himself and his children to Gentiles or who takes a loan from them and becomes enslaved to them or is imprisoned because of the loan, the first and second time it is a mitzvah to redeem them. The third time they do not redeem him, but they redeem the children after the death of their father. But if they want to kill him, then they redeem him from their power, even if this is several times [that this has happened].156See Babylonian Talmud Gittin 46b-47a.

(14) In the case of a slave who was taken captive, if he immersed himself for the sake of servitude and he accepted upon himself the duty of the mitzvot, they redeem him as if he were a Jew who had been taken captive. But if the prisoner rebels and joins the idolaters, even if it is by [transgressing] one mitzvah, such as the prohibition against eating carrion, in order to infuriate [the Jewish community], etc., it is forbidden to redeem him.157See Babylonian Talmud Gittin 37b and 47a.

(15) A woman takes precedence over a man for feeding, clothing, and bringing out of prison, because it is more usual for men to go door to door [to beg] and not for a woman who feels great shame in this. But if both of them [a man and a woman] were in captivity and were in danger of being violated sexually, the man takes precedence for redemption, because this is not the way of things.158See Mishnah Horayot 3:7, Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 67a.

(16) In the case of a male orphan and a female orphan who come [to the authorities of the community] to get married [but not to each other], the female [orphan] takes precedence over the man, because she feels great shame in this.159See Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 67a-b. And they may not give her less than the worth of six and a quarter dinar of pure silver, and if they have more in the bank of tzedakah, they give to her according to her honor.160See Mishnah Ketubot 6:5.

(17) If we have before us many poor people or many captives, and there is not enough in the fund to sustain them, or to clothe them, or to redeem them all, a priest takes precedence over a Levite, a Levite over a [regular] Jew, a Jew over a chalel [an illegitimate child of a priest], a chalel over a shetuki [an illegitimate child with an unknown father], a shetuki over a asufi [a foundling], an asufi over a mamzer [a child who was conceived in a union forbidden by the Torah], a mamzer over a natin [a descendent of the Gibeonites], and a natin over a stranger, so long as the natin was praised with us in holiness, and a convert takes precedence over a freed slave, for he [the slave] was once one of the cursed.161See Mishnah Horayot 3:8.

(18) To what does this refer? When both who are imprisoned are equal in wisdom. But if there was a High Priest who was an ignoramus and a mamzer who was a wise disciple, the wise disciple takes precedence. Anyone who is great in wisdom takes precedence over another. But if one of them [the captives] was one's rabbi or father, even if there is someone who is greater in wisdom, one's rabbi or father [takes precedence]. Even if there is someone there [among the captives] who is greater in wisdom than his rabbi or his father, so long as he [his father or rabbi] is a wise disciple, he [the father or the rabbi] takes precedence over the one who is greater than them in wisdom.162See Mishnah Horayot 3:8 and Babylonian Talmud Horayot 13a.

(א) דין פדיון שבויים וכיצד פודין אותם. ובו י"ב סעיפים:
פדיון שבויים קודם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותן ואין מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבויים הילכך לכל דבר מצוה שגבו מעות בשבילו יכולים לשנותן לפדיון שבויים ואפי' אם גבו לצורך בנין ב"ה ואפי' אם קנו העצים והאבנים והקצום לצורך הבנין שאסור למכרם בשביל מצוה אחרת מותר למכרם לצורך פדיון שבויים אבל אם בנאוהו כבר לא ימכרו אותו (ומ"מ הנודר סלע לצדקה אין פדיון שבויים בכלל ואין לפדות בסלע זו רק מדעת בני העיר (מהרי"ק שורש ז') כדלקמן סי' רנ"ו סעיף ד'):

(ב) המעלים עיניו מפדיון שבויים עובר על לא תאמץ את לבבך ועל לא תקפוץ את ידך ועל לא תעמוד על דם רעך ועל לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך ובטל מצות פתוח תפתח את ידך לו ומצות וחי אחיך עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך והצל לקוחים למות והרבה דברים כאלו:

(ג) כל רגע שמאחר לפדות השבויים היכא דאפשר להקדים הוי כאילו שופך דמים:

(ד) אין פודין השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהם מפני תיקון העולם שלא יהיו האויבים מוסרים עצמם עליהם לשבותם אבל אדם יכול לפדות את עצמו בכל מה שירצה וכן לת"ח או אפי' אינו ת"ח אלא שהוא תלמיד חריף ואפשר שיהיה אדם גדול פודים אותו בדמים מרובים (ואם אשתו כאחר דמי או לא עיין בטור אבן העזר סי' ע"ח):

(ה) אין מבריחין השבויים מפני תיקון העולם שלא יהיו האויבים מכבידים עולם עליהם ומרבים בשמירתם:

(ו) מי שמכר עצמו לעובד כוכבים או שלוה מהם ושבו אותו בהלואתו פעם ראשונה ושניה פודים אותו ושלישית אין פודים אותו אבל פודים את הבנים לאחר מיתת אביהם ואם בקשו להרגו פודין אותו מיד אפילו אחר כמה פעמים (ושבוי שהמיר אפי' למצוה אחת כגון אוכל נבילות להכעיס אסור לפדותו (טור) וע"ל ריש סי' רנ"א):

(ז) עבד שנשבה הואיל וטבל לשם עבדות וקבל עליו מצות פודים אותו כישראל שנשבה:

(ח) פודים האשה קודם האיש ואם רגילין במשכב זכור פודים האיש קודם (הגהת מרדכי) (ואם שניהם רוצים לטבוע בנהר הצלת האיש קודם) (ב"י סי' רנ"א וכן משמע סוף הוריות):

(ט) הוא ואביו ורבו בשבי הוא קודם לרבו ורבו קודם לאביו אמו קודמת לכולם (וע"ל סי' רמ"ב סעיף ל"ד):

(י) אם איש ואשתו שבויים אשתו קודמת לו ובית דין יורדין לנכסיו ופודים אותה ואפי' עומד וצווח אל תפדוה מנכסי אין שומעין לו:

(יא) מי שנשבה ויש לו נכסים ואינו רוצה לפדות עצמו פודים אותו בעל כרחו:

(יב) האב חייב לפדות את הבן אי אית ליה לאב ולית ליה לבן: הגה וה"ה קרוב אחר קרוב קרוב קודם דלא כל הימנו שיעשירו עצמם ויטילו קרוביהם על הצבור (מרדכי פ' השוכר) הפודה חבירו מן השביה חייב לשלם לו אם אית ליה לשלם ולא אמרינן דהוא מבריח ארי מנכסי חבירו (מרדכי פ' הכונס ופ' דייני גזירות ות' מהרי"ו סי' קמ"ח קמ"ט וב"י בשם מ"כ) וצריך לשלם לו מיד ולא יוכל למימר אני ציית לך דין ואם אית ליה אח"כ טענה עליו יתבענו לדין דבלא זה אין אדם פודה את חבירו (מהרי"ו סי' קמ"ט וכ"כ הב"י):

(1) Ransoming captives comes before feeding or clothing the poor. There is no act of charity more meritorious than ransoming captives; therefore, money collected for any worthy purpose whatsoever may be used as ransom, even if originally collected for the erection of a Synagogue. And further: even if the building materials have already been bought and the beams squared (which makes it a grave offense to sell them for any other purpose) nevertheless, it is permitted to sell them to raise a ransom. However, if the structure is already erected it should not be sold. (Still, if one donates a Sela to Charity without specification, ransoming is not to be understood in the general term of charity, and the Sela should not be used for this purpose without the knowledge of the members of the community.)

(2) He who shuts his eyes against the ransoming of captives transgresses the negative precepts, "Thou shalt not harden thy heart",2Deut. 15:7. and, "[Thou shalt not] shut thy hand";2Deut. 15:7. also this, "Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbor",3Lev. 19:16. and this, "He shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight";1Lev. 25:53. and he neglects the positive precepts, "Thou shalt surely open thy hand unto him",2Dent. 15:8. and, "that thy brother may live with thee,"3Lev. 25:36. The Hebrew text permits the rendition “Let thy brother live,” etc. and, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"4Lev. 19:18. and, "Deliver them that are carried away unto death."5Prov. 24:11.

(3) Every moment that one delays unnecessarily the ransoming of a captive, it is as if he were to shed blood.

(4) Captives are not to be ransomed at an unreasonable cost, for the safety of society; otherwise, the enemies would exert every effort to capture victims. But a man may ransom himself at any price. So also, a scholar should be ransomed at a greater price, or even a student who gives promise of becoming a great scholar. (As to whether one's wife is considered "another" or "one's self," see Eben Ha-Ezer,6Eben Ha-Ezer is the fourth part of this code of Shulhan Arukh, and deals with laws pertaining to woman. 78.)

(5) Captives should not be aided to escape, for the sake of public safety; lest the enemies treat the captives with greater severity and confine them under closer custody.

(6) He who sells himself to heathens, or who borrowed from them and is held by them for non-payment, should be ransomed the first time and the second time, but not if it happens a third time. But his children should be ransomed after the father's death. However, if his life is in danger, he must be ransomed immediately, no matter how many times it has happened before. (But one who is an apostate with regard to even one precept, as, for instance, if he eats meat not slaughtered according to ritual in a spirit of defiance, it is forbidden to ransom him.) (See Art. 251.)

(7) A slave who is made captive, is ransomed like a captive Israelite, since he is regarded as a free-man after he takes the required ritual bath and assumes the obligations of certain Jewish laws.

(8) A woman is redeemed before a man; but where pederasty is common, the man is given precedence. (If both are willing to drown, the man is rescued first.)

(9) If he and his father and his teacher are captives, he himself comes before his teacher; and his teacher before his father; but his mother comes before all.

(10) If a man and his wife are captured, the wife is ransomed first, and Court may seize his property to ransom her; and even if he protests, "Do not ransom her with my property," no attention is paid to him.

(11) If a captive has property but does not wish to ransom himself, his ransom is paid against his will.

(12) A father is obliged to ransom his son, if the father has the means and the son has not.

To our Jewish Brethren Worldwide:

Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin is due to be sentenced shortly, and as the situation now stands, is facing the possibility of a very lengthy jail sentence, G-d forbid. US Legal experts have informed community leaders involved in this case, that the recommended sentence (by the US attorney) is overzealous and excessively harsh, and is totally unparalleled to similar offenses by others.

According to the experts involved in the case, phone calls and letters to department of justice (expressing concern) about this situation can be helpful. Therefore, there is a holy obligation for every single individual to get involved in this matter of utmost Pidyon Shvuyim , and to do whatever they possibly can to assist in this matter.

As well, anyone who has the ability to urge the department of justice or political officials to rectify the (undue) harshness (displayed by the DOJ) should get in touch with the committee as soon as possible, and do whatever they possibly can to help rectify the (undue) harshness, and hereby fulfill the mitzvah of ‘Lo Taamod’ – not standing by idly while a fellow’s blood is shed.

As the Shulchan Aruch Yoreah Deah rules (252:3): Every moment that one delays the mitzvah of Pidyan Shvuyim, when there exists the possibility to assist sooner, is tantamount to committing bloodshed. As the Rambam’s states famously in the Laws of Matnas Aniyim (8:4): There exists no greater mitzvah than that of Pidyun Shvuyim ; One who looks away from assisting in helping to free the person, violates the injunctions of : Do Not Harden Your Heart, Do Not Be Tightfisted and Do Not Stand By While The Blood of Your Fellow is Being Shed. The Rambam then states an additional five mitzvahs involved in this.

Our Sages have already stated (Shabbos 151b ): All Who Have Compassion on Living Beings, Heaven will have compassion on him.

May Hashem positively change the hearts of the authorities to good; May the cries of the imprisoned come before Hashem, and speedily extract him from his imprisonment.

Amen.
Month of Iyor, 5770.

~ From Wikipedia

Sholom Mordechai Rubashkin (born October 30, 1959) is an American businessman and the former CEO of Agriprocessors, a now-bankrupt kosher slaughterhouse and meat packing plant in Postville, Iowa, formerly owned by his father, Aaron Rubashkin. During his time as CEO of the plant, Agriprocessors grew into the largest kosher meat producer in the United States, but was also cited for issues involving animal treatment, food safety, environmental safety, child labor, and hiring of undocumented immigrants.

In November 2009, Rubashkin was convicted of 86 counts of financial fraud, including bank fraud, mail and wire fraud and money laundering.

In April 2010, several American and Canadian haredi rabbis from different Jewish sects released a public pronouncement (Kol Koreh), asking for Pidyon Shvuyim on his behalf.

In June 2010, he was sentenced to 27 years in prison. In a separate trial, he was acquitted of knowingly hiring underage workers. He served his sentence in Federal Correctional Institution, Otisville in Mount Hope, New York.

In January 2011, his lawyers filed an appeal; on September 16, 2011, the appeals court ruled against Rubashkin.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from that ruling on October 1, 2012. On December 20, 2017, asserting a large bipartisan push for the measure, President Donald Trump commuted Rubashkin's prison sentence after eight years served.

The case of Gilad Shalit ~ teshuvah by R. Shlomo Brody

Does Halacha mandate releasing hundreds of terrorists to free captured soldiers?

The dilemma over what price to pay for redeeming captives has, alas, engaged the Jewish people since antiquity. The capture of soldiers like Gilad Schalit and the demand to release terrorists only further complicates this quandary. I will try to present the debate's parameters, without giving an opinion, in hope that clarity of the issues can aid public dialogue.

The Talmud praises redeeming captives (pidyon shevuyim) as a great mitzva, superior even to charity because it liberates a person from the emotional (and sometimes physical) pain of captivity (Bava Batra 8a-b). Consequently, Jewish law allows communal leaders to reallocate money dedicated to different causes, like synagogue building funds, toward collecting ransom money, with some going so far as to permit selling Torah scrolls to raise money (Tosafot).

Maimonides lists no less than seven biblical mandates fulfilled by liberating a captive (Matanot Le'ani'im 8:10), while Rabbi Joseph Kolon conversely compares one who needlessly delays in freeing a captive to a murderer (YD 252:3).

The Bible further highlights stories about redeeming captives, including Abraham's rescue of Lot (Genesis 14) and Moses's (Numbers 20) and David's (I Samuel 30) liberation of war captives. Nonetheless, the sages limited, in the name of tikkun olam (repairing the world), the sum of the ransom, asserting that one cannot pay more than the person's market value (Gitin 45a). Some believed that this decree aimed to limit the financial burden on the community, thereby allowing a wealthy individual or community to voluntarily pay an exorbitant sum to free a captive.

Most medieval commentators, followed by Rabbi Yosef Karo, adopted an alternative talmudic explanation that these limits prevent providing lucrative incentives for further kidnappings, thereby forbidding excessive payments even from people with deep pockets (YD 252:4). However, a number of exceptions were made to this rule. While Rabbi Menahem Hameiri contended that one cannot overpay even to redeem himself, normative Halacha asserted that one can use an unlimited amount of his own money to buy himself liberty.

Despite Maimonides's protest (Hilchot Ishut 14:19), similar dispensations were granted for redeeming one's spouse (Tosafot Ketubot 52a). Indeed, part of the marital contract ordains that men must redeem their wives, with Halacha further ruling that, in general, communities should give preference to freeing female captives to prevent ignoble acts against them (Horayot 13a). While the community can force a wealthy member to pay for the fair-rate redemption of his other relatives (YD 252:11-12), it remains forbidden for a person to voluntarily overpay, although the Talmud testifies that some did not follow this stricture (Gitin 45a).

The Talmud further relates that after the Roman conquest, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania redeemed for an exorbitant price a promising youth who grew into the great sage Rabbi Yishmael. Some medieval authorities explained that given the preponderance of wartime captives, it remained futile to try to prevent future kidnappings, which inevitably happen in such periods (Tosafot Gitin 45a). As such, some believe that the sages' rules do not apply to contemporary prisoner swaps following wars, especially since these exchanges follow conventional protocols.

A more controversial interpretation asserted that one may redeem scholars for inflated sums, since their value to the community is immeasurable and irreplaceable. In one celebrated incident, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (Germany, 13th century) died in prison after refusing to be redeemed for Emperor Rudolph I's inflated ransom demand, fearing that other despots would imprison fellow scholars (Yam Shel Shlomo Gitin 4:66).

Others contended that the ransom limitations did not apply in cases where the captive's lives are endangered, as in Yishmael's case (Tosafot Gitin 58a). Nahmanides (Gitin 45a) and others disputed this interpretation, contending that one cannot save the captive's life by threatening the lives of future captives. By the 16th century, however, it remains clear that Jewish communities throughout the world created special funds to redeem as many captives as possible, fearing for both their lives and the future of the nation (Shu"t Radbaz 1:40).

Israel has particularly suffered from this dilemma, which culminated in the 1985 "Jibril deal" that released 1150 prisoners for three living soldiers captured during the First Lebanon War. At the time, Rabbi Shlomo Goren vociferously criticized the deal for endangering soldiers by providing incentives for future kidnappings. He further warned of the prisoners returning to terror, fears borne out by Ahmed Yassin (future head of Hamas assassinated by Israel in 2004) and other released terrorists later engaging in massive terrorist activities. When Goren later republished his essay, however, he concluded like Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, who believed that the government must take full responsibility for its soldiers, deeming it analogous to someone paying an exorbitant price to redeem himself. Which position is right? Perhaps both, and hence the continuing debate.