Prisoner Exchange in Halacha By Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

okay hi good morning everybody uh first uh to announce the dedications uh for the entire year uh the Tuesday share this Tuesday share was sponsored by r f and Sharon Alman in memory of their parents Yona Ben sadok and uh Esther Bas Rafael and their son uh may all of the mat and we're very very grateful uh for the generous support um I thought I would take a little break we're in the middle of a topic but I uh in light of the news and the like I wanted to maybe give you one session on the hak issues that involve prisoner releases and hostage exchanges uh now granted I don't think natano was Consulting with too many rabbis on this I certainly didn't get a phone call but who knows uh but it is an issue and of course uh this is not the first time that the state of Israel has to deal with this heartbreaking issue we had galat Shalit uh story a few years ago and before that the truth is even with in tbbi at least initially which was under consideration was some type of prisoner Exchange program it happened to be it was rendered moot by virtue of the very courageous and really miraculous and TBB raid where as all of you know uh Yoni Nano the prime minister s's brother lost his life uh in leading that particular raid so um it's a very very difficult and emotional issue and uh you know I don't I'm going to be relatively dispassionate and objective here but that that certainly does not mean that I'm cold and unfeeling uh in terms of the human Dimension but I just want you to understand perhaps many of you have done this looked at this already so I apologize if what I say is not a Kish necessarily but I just want to go over the primary mcor that deals with this particular problem on one hand we know there is a great great Mitzvah called P people who are in captive people who are held against their will there's a great Mitzvah to Ransom them to free them to get them out of their uh condition uh PID is such an important Mitzvah that we even sell a safer Torah or sell a sh to be able to have money to get pigeon now it's a little aside by the way this is kind of digression what is the definition of a captive now obviously U people who are held by Kamas as hostages are certainly captives but the interesting question is what if you have a Jewish person who actually committed a crime and he was Tried by a court and was sentenced to jail uh whether it would be Jonathan Pard whether it would be rubashkin now so the question would be you know they committed a crime uh are they considered to be captive now there is a story through mosha Feinstein a very interesting story uh and again I'm not comparing p and rubashkin I I'll talk about that separately in a minute but the story that went to R Moshe was there was a member of the F Community I think in New York who had a son who was convicted of cocaine dealing drug dealing and the person went to R MOA I'm not sure what Raa could have done but they asked rosha write a letter could rosha make an appearance could rosha send somebody there to vouch for know good the boy's a good character he just fell it with the wrong people and it is said mosha looked at the man and said your son ought to be in jail what's what's the concept your son did things that were dangerous your son did things that endangered the lives of people maybe he even killed people he says there's nothing wrong with him being in jail and there's no Mitzvah to try to get him out of jail as it were now this is the story now which suggests in other words that you know criminals should be in jail now obvious viously obviously the Pard and rubashkin situations are very very different because there you're dealing number one with non-violent crimes and indeed in the case of Jonathan Pard uh the information that he gave was to a friendly Ally of the United States and indeed there was information that the US government should have turned over anyway uh even rubashkin rubashkin was guilty of things but these are the types of things that you commonly get you know 7 months in jail and $100,000 fine to get whatever he got a 25e sentence was was so muga so out of proportion you know the average sentence for murder in the United States is seven years you know uh some rubashkin because what was what one what was one of his crimes one of his crimes was he overvalued his assets in a loan application to a to a bank but he paid back the loan the loan was paid back the bank said you know we don't care we're not a press charges we got our money but the government said no we have to prosecute fraud so Trump has the same yeah it's the same thing that Trump is going through meaning you can't make a general statement meaning some prison sentences are so unjust so unfair uh whether it's through anti-Semitism or other features you know I don't really know so at that point that type of prisoner might be a sh and there's a mitvah but when it comes to violent offenders who are really dangerous to other people rosha said that you know they're not shuin they're getting the punishment that they need or that they deserve now that doesn't mean see that doesn't mean we don't try to provide them support uh you know whatever it would be there's a wonderful organization kabad has the alif organization that actually works and helps Jewish prisoners whether it's kosher food whether it's learning whether it's filling those things we should do a Jew is still a Jew meaning even if it's not P sh to get him out we try to help him in whatever way we can even if you know there's always Chu Etc but you're not necessarily A shaboy but of course uh to our sorrow that is academic with respect to our hostages because our are 1,00% shim so on one hand there's a great great Mitzvah called p and I see a sign a banner out that right near the show here that says and indeed call it because it's and sexual abuse and and all sorts of tragic tragic things but here's the problem the problem is that when you secure the release of shin in ways that do create danger for the general population how do you strike the balance do you say hey I got 200 people there I got to do whatever I can to save their lives no matter what's going to be or do I say well wait a second here I can't endanger or I shouldn't endanger potentially thousands of people we already know that in the galad Shalit which of course was a a ratio of a thousand to one I think that one of the people sinir one of the terrorists who who was released was actually instrumental in planning the the Hamas attack of oo the Pam as we call it of October 7 so this is really a heart you know politically emotionally it is a heartbreaking decision because how does a a government official look a parent in their face and say I'm sorry we're not going to rescue your child because we we're not going to release terrorists or or whatever it would be you know so let me just share with you the main halik source the main halik source on this question is a mishna in Al that says uh this is deals from in the ancient world where people would be seized just kidnapped it's not a war situation necessarily they were held to be sold as slaves and Jewish communities would often Ransom uh these people to free them from their slavery meaning essentially they bought a slave but of course uh they didn't hold him as a slave just they bought him just to uh get him free so it mentions that you don't pay beyond their worth now of course what does that mean beyond their worth life is infinite but it actually means that slaves had in a slave market Society human beings had an economic value how much would you would the normal price be for you now that depends of course on your age on your strength on your talents on your abilities Etc some people you know would command a bigger price some people command a lesser price so if the kidnappers are just demanding the standard price in the slave market then you got to pay it that's the mitz P but if they are demanding more than the standard slave market price kazal made a takana that you do not pay excessive ransoms beyond their market value now the gar the mishna does not well the mission says and the reason for this is T this is a rectification or an improvement or a Tak for the benefit of society but the to the mishna does not say what is the benefit of the society here so the gamar proceeds to explain that there are two possibilities one is and that is we don't want communities to go bankrupt paying of ram ram every time somebody gets kidnapped a community has to come up with $10 million or whatever 40 million shek at some point they're not going to have money for hospitals for yot for roads whatever for you know for everything that Society needs so therefore kazal Exempted them from paying these excessive ransoms because it would deplete resources that's reason number one we don't want communities to impoverish themselves by paying these ransoms the second reason is we don't want to encourage hostage takings in the future which will endanger more and more people because if the kidnapper knows that they could get whatever they could possibly get and we have to come up with the money then yeah they'll give you the hostage and then they'll take more people and more people and more people people so kazal were concerned with the future dangers of giving into the demands of kidnappers meaning to say uh we don't give in to those demands because of the dangers that would be occasioned by encouraging kidnapping now the gamara says there's a nafina there's a practical difference here and that is and this may be very hard to swallow can an individual who come up with his own resources meaning here's the idea uh let's assume that the community is not being asked but it happens to be that somebody's child God forbid was kidnapped again we're not talking about Kamas yet I'm just talking about routine kidnappers for slavery and we'll come back to the modern situation that we're facing now the community if it's only a concern that a community should not deplete its resources well a private person can spend his money any way he wants so if I want to spend my money to Ransom my child I'll spend my money to Ransom my child who's going to tell me we know but here is the kicker if you go with the second reason that kazal were concerned not to encourage or embolden future kidnappings as strange as it sounds the parent would not be allowed to pay an excessive re now that my guess is most parents wouldn't listen if they had the resources so um indeed the gar gives the story about a certain person who PID a huge sum to get his daughter back and the gamar says okay he did it parents do what they do but Shalo it was not in accordance with the will of the sages so theoretically there actually is a rule that even a parent is not allowed to pay an excessive Ransom but that's only like the second reason meaning if you go with communal resources would be permitted like the second reason even would not be permitted to do it I have to say that the r and the all pasan like the second reason that our concern is not merely economic preservation of resources Our concern is to Shield the public from the danger of Hostage takings over or kidnappings over and over and over again and therefore the theory is the halakic theory is if the kidnapper knows they're not going to be able to make a exorbitant profet it's less likely less likely that they'll do it uh in the in the future and therefore this is the tick now here is the thing when you're dealing with not just well well actually let me give you one example where this was actually carried out in the 13th century 1200s there was a very great Rabbi who was considered to be among ashic Jews the godash and this was rabi mayor of renberg Mahar called maharam M Rutenberg and he was the rebi of the rush he really was the true godal hador of all ashkanazi jewelry and uh he was kidnapped he was just held for ransom it was no big deal they just took him for ransom and uh they demanded excessive uh money a lot of money and marami Rittenberg instructed the Jewish Community not to pay the ransom based on this principle in the miss that you don't redeem captives more than their economic value now his own talmud the rash rabo aser disagreed and Raba yasher felt that we have an obligation to redeem marami Rutenberg because he was the God hador I'll talk about the gador exception in a few moments but the maram had a very logical argument if you consider me the galador how can you violate my Pak not your redeem it meaning you're going to violate my based on me being the godor you know that's that's a logical contradiction so marami Rittenberg actually languished in a confinement for more than seven years uh he died in confinement now now bem uh apparently his life was not in danger I don't know why they wouldn't kill him but brem they just held him and it was not uh such a well I mean it was it was bad but it wasn't as bad as you might imagine he was able to have tal visit him he was able to give shim he was able to write some of his and date from his captivity so it was more like a kind of a house arrest you know he was confined to a room uh but in that room he he had the resources he needed to be able to to live a Jewish life but still for seven years to be put in the confinement yeah does NE not yeah I'll I'll I'll I'll address it I I'll address uh yeah now what happened was when he he then died in captivity and uh the captive the Caps were demanding a ransom to release his body and here already interestingly enough uh since he was no longer alive the rush felt he could activate his his Pak and uh there was an individual who paid a very wealthy man who uh paid to have the marami renberg's body released on the condition that when the man dies he would be buried next to maharam Rutenberg and indeed in Germany in Rottenberg wherever wherever that is I don't even know where the city is but where it is is in the old Jewish cemetery we still have the Kev of marami Rutenberg and next to him is the person who ransomed uh paid the ransom uh to get him out of that captivity uh so um this was actually applied in practice now when we apply this principle to hostage exchanges on one level this is even worse than the problem that the gamar is concerned about the gamar was concerned with the problem that if we pay excessive ransoms we are embold emboldening and encouraging more kidnappings in the future now certainly that problem exists with prisoner exchanges as well that they might as well take more Jewish is but there's an additional problem that goes beyond that and that is the release of the terrorist itself it's not just they're going to kidnap more people the terrorists who are being released can God forbid kill uh many Jews in other words if the gamarra has a problem don't give in to the kidnappers because of future dangers a hostage release or a prisoner release whatever language you want to use uh is even worse than simply paying Ransom to the kidnapper when I pay Ransom to a kidnapper so the problem is that may encourage kidnapping and that's a problem here too but here in addition to the problem of encouraging kidnapping we actually are releasing terrorists back into the population so so problem number one again problem I'm I'm not giving up sock yet in I Won't Give Up sock at all but problem number one is is a prisoner Exchange program Again by the way whether you call it a prisoner exchange or a hostage exchange you know it's it's a it's a funny semantic difference I understand that Hamas likes to call it prisoner exchange Etc uh but whatever it is uh I'm not going to get into the semantics or the politically correct way of of referring to these things uh but the problem basically is that this is a violation of the Rabin enactment of a poan because it is creating dangers to the public as well as encouraging future hostage takings so what's the other side of this so here's the thing tosos asks a number of questions and tosos gives a number of answers and depending on the answer you'll have some important differences about the legitimacy of these programs the gamarra gives a story in fact uh you know there's a gamar that everybody learns on Tish right on Tish we're not allowed to learn regular Torah so we learn those goras that are sad or about the Corin mikash so the famous one of the famous passages that people learn is in also in m and that's the story of Kam and bar and all of the different stories so if you go far enough sometimes people don't learn to the end of the story there's a particular story that the gamorra says that RAB Yeshua Ben this is in the aftermath of the B mikdash encountered a beautiful child a child that even physically was very very beautiful and he had a sense that this was not physical Beauty but there was some something very special about this child and and uh he he gave him like a little test with a PK he just shouted out you know the kid was being sold as a slave or whatever it was and he just shouted out half a PK to see if the child could respond with the other half of the PK and this is a PK in I think yes mov who put the Jewish people in plunder and the P ends H it's hasem that did it because we didn't keep the mitzvos and this is God's punishment so RAB Yeshua said who put B Israel in plunder and the child said hello so it's really two things number one he knew the p and number two he was affirming the idea of the P that everything is from Hashem and we accept it we don't complain Etc we don't Tiner against Hashem and Rua said I am very sure that this child will grow up to be a great great Jewish leader a great and I will redeem him for whatever price is the demand it and it is said that he raised a huge amount of money to redeem this child this is a story in the gamar so toos asks the question that how could that be uh the is even an individual is not supposed to according to the reason of not to encourage even the individual is not supposed to pay an excessive Ransom because you're encouraging hostage taking and and the like so how could violate the of so there are two different Tois and but they give a total of three answers and these answers will make a big difference in our situation answer number one we will call the godor exception meaning if somebody is an exceptionally great tus scholar or in this case the potential to be an exceptionally great torus scholar all bets are you can do whatever you need to do and therefore rhua saw in this person who indeed did become a great great God that uh he's worthy of being redeemed no matter what it is so that would only apply to the not necessarily gador but to someone who potentially will be a great Torah scholar that is answer number one answer number two is your point that is this was a situation of PES now this is a huge huge exception to the rule of the mishna meaning according to answer number two the rule that we don't pay excessive ransoms because we're worried about future problems only applies where the life of the hostages is not jeopardized where the life of the hostage of the is the is we do whatever we can because of ah you'll ask me the obvious question why should the PES of the be more important than the P of future people whose lives may be end danger that that's the obvious question and the answer is because one is V and one is sufff meaning to say the people who are kidnapped they are presently in a definitive danger their lives are in danger every single second it's hard to believe but you have to understand this every single second that they are inas custody or whatever in a captivity situation like that that is V Sak now to talk about the future dangers of releasing terrorists they certainly do exist but they are in the nature of speculative dangers you know maybe you know the IDF or the shinb or whatever it would be is going to stop them uh and the like so as a result there is a general rule according to this remember this is only one answer in other words this is not a final answer this is one answer uh we we apply the rule that those who are in V definitive danger override speculative dangers that may or may not occur in the future now that's a huge hole because that basically says that a mishna that looks like it's a general rule will actually apply in relatively few cases like marami renberg would be a case like that because the vast majority of both kidnappings and certainly hostage takings is a situation according to this answer of toos the whole mishna is not going to apply in a situation now but keep in mind mind though that the fact that toos gave another answer for the for the rabi Yoshua story indicates that like that answer would not be sufficient and indeed the ramban says explicitly the ramban absolutely disagrees with toos and the ramban says even even if that means the hostage is going to die this is what the ramban says we do not redeem them in excess of their value because we have to be concerned with danger to the public so you have a clear M between toos and ran on this critical point in many ways although I'll give you another bit of reasoning a little later in many ways this is the Crux of the issue here because we have who are in a definitive state of Sakana and we're going to secure their release by doing something that potentially May endanger the population and again this is in actually three different ways in some ways number one by releasing terrorists number two by the ceas fire that gives you know Hamas time to regroup and of course Hamas can play this uh forever I mean they could basically say you know they could stretch this out for 6 months or more and uh they could rebuild build a lot of capacities uh within 6 months and number three it encourages future kidnapping so so there are three Sak I mean they're all related there is the release of the terrorist per se who could be MIM there is the uh ceasefire uh which gives them time and there is the encouraging of the kidnapping so if you go with the answer that for PES we don't care about future dangers we just look Here and Now such a deal would be much not only much would be a Mitzvah if on the other hand you follow the ramban's view that the of the is that we ignore even the S of in order to save Society from a future danger this would be disallowed so you see already that the halak legitimacy of these types of exchange programs would be subject to the mlo between toos and the ramban how to understand the rabi Ismael well was the name of the rabbi but rabi Yeshua was the ransom rabi Ishmael was the kid who became rabi ishma later uh that how do you understand the rabbi Ishmael story do you carve it out as a narrow little exception for godor or do you generalize it that whenever there be we look at the present definitive danger and we don't consider the future future dangers and that does mean that the whole mishna is talking about a relatively uncommon case where the kidna victim's life is not in danger that's pretty rare in fact I don't I don't even understand uh why my Ramy Rittenberg was not in danger I mean why wouldn't they kill him I'm not sure exactly why but in that type of case that's when you apply the mishna of course marami Rutenberg rejected the gadar exception that that that's what the rush tried to do okay so this is the issue now I heard an interview uh in a way it was kind of a little frightening uh with Jonathan Pard and uh Ravid baril was a very very interesting fellow uh you know an orthodox Rabbi but really a Maverick kind of a little little unusual in many many ways and Jonathan Pard said that the hostage release thing uh the prisoner exchange whatever you want to call it was absolutely wrong he says Israel has lost the war he said every that will be killed from this day forward is for nothing because uh we have lost the war by giving in by a ceasefire uh he made the claim that if if all the hostages do get released of course I we pray that it should be the case the us is going to tell Israel what are you what are you fighting for you got you got what you want uh and uh he said when you're fighting a war and I'll I'll come to that when you're fighting a war you got to uh not stop until you achieve a military objective he was absolutely against putting pictures of the hostages there and he said a National Emergency should have been declared I'm quoting him this is not me talking and he said that the families should have been ordered not to make any public statements and if they refused to comply he said round him up and throw them in prison uh you know it was hard to even hear those words but that's what he said and he gave a Demian when he was in the Navy he learned that if you're in a submarine and uh there's a leak in uh let's say the the back half of the submarine and the submarine is going to uh sink you have to seal off the back half even if that means there are a bunch of people stuck who can't you know can't leave that part of the submarine for whatever reason and they're going to die he says you have to do that to save the lives of the rest of the people he said we have a similar type of problem uh again um H you know how do I how do you look in the eyes of a parent who is saying what are you doing for my son or daughter and your answer is they're I'm sorry they're going to have to die because of our military objective of destroying Hamas very very very very very but once again though uh the bottom line to all of this is although I'll mention one counterargument is that um according to one answer of tosos this is a legitimate procedure because the people who are are there's and even though we're doing p in a way that is potentially endangering future people but that potenti danger is speculative and unknown and according to this answer of toos you have to look at your actual danger uh and that trumps the potential danger andaj ysf um well he was he's not alive now but but with the gonal he actually approved the gon Shalit uh transaction uh they say rebel Yash did as well uh so many many can follow uh this toos there were however others who took the position like the ramban that the larger protection of society requires that people people be endangered if that's necessary now what's interesting is that you know the state of Israel in the past has not only released terrorists for people who are alive they've released terrorists for dead bodies so so the question that's interesting is even if you go with tovos that were allowed to pay excessive ransoms for would there be a heter to pay excessive ransoms when someone's already dead but for K to get a dead body back it's not clear at all that there is a header for that because the Heder was uh for the kai and not for met marami renberg who they did pay excessive Ransom but once again that fell within the god hador Exception by the way it's interesting uh with inbi I'm sorry not inbi earlier than inbi you may remember in the early years of hijacking so there was uh a flight of Jews that was hijacked and rev hutner was on the flight not in TBI Jord in Jordan yeah yeah so obviously we were worried about all the Jews but uh there was a special worry about Riva one of theor so uh there was some attempt at some point to try to when they were not willing to release everybody to try to secure a special release for f hoodner uh rakov keski said not that's not proper uh so I always wonder a bit of a joke when when was released like you know what what what what what was his relationship with rakov you know rakov said don't release but I'm sure listen I'm sure everything was fine because if that was the then you know that was the but that was a similar type of type of discussion uh now I do want to point out that rakov said another point though rakov made the following point which really ties into Jonathan par rakov said all of the discussion that you can do things for PES and the like is not relevant to war he he said he differenti iated between kidnappings and acts of War he said okay in kidnappings you know some guy is kidnapping to hold for money so if it's I can pay ransoms those are private issues that may endanger the public in the future so we're make him but he said when you have a to protect the Jewish people and there Israel then you're obligated to destroy the enemy or disable the enemy and there he made the following point this is Rak Kam this is years ago the same way right I mean let's assume that is sent to Gaza so he says I'm sorry I can't go because it's you know I mean you're telling me to endanger my life what what what does that mean you know right well the answer is is simple that when it's a we are to put our lives at risk that's what mil means so the same way a May potentially have to give his life or any of us in order to maximize the success of the military effort there is sometimes the notion of what you might call an involuntary meaning somebody is a prisoner somebody is a hostage but if by securing their release we are frustrating the war effort then in a sense they would be part of theim that would be most neish now there's this is a a different argument meaning rakov is arguing that even if we would accept to's rule that for PES we could normally pay Ransom he said a wartime situation is different because in wartime we are commanded to put our lives at risk in order to advance the military objective and this would include now let me give you an example where let me give you an example where where this is undoubtedly the case you know one major issue in all in all wars is what is euphemistically called collateral damage Dage and you know this is getting Israel in trouble all the time uh now Israel to its great credit and sometimes even to the detriment of the military objective goes to amazing lengths much more than the United States I mean listen um I didn't notice in uh Nagasaki and World War II and Dresden and all of those things uh any particular great concern for hundreds of thousands of civilians who got hurt but Israel has leaflets and SMS messages and uh individual telephone calls get them out of here and of course keep in mind that Hamas didn't issue any advanced warnings and October 7 saying you know get out of this concert we're going to be you know murdering some people here uh know Kamas tends not to give us that that courtesy uh and of course when Israel warns civilians they're also warning Kamas that were coming you know so so Israel does it so it is really really true that the IDF and this is to the great credit some people are critical of it because they say you know uh it's emboldening the enemy but to the it's great credit there's a tremendous reverence for for life not just our lives but the lives of the other side too golden Mayer made an Infamous statement and you don't don't you know attack me uh because I'm not endorsing the whole statement but I'm endorsing half of the statement uh she said the first half I do not endorse but but but she did say we can forgive the Arabs for killing our children I don't accept that but then she said we can't forgive them for making us kill their children there is a truth in that there is a truth in that you know uh Judaism is not pacifistic we don't believe in turning the other cheek it is very very clear somebody's coming to kill you or your family or your people you kill them if necessary absolutely you kill them that's a Mitzvah Mitzvah but you don't do it with joy you don't do it with happiness you don't do it with dancing their blood you do it with sadness you do it with regret and you look for every possible way not to have to do it and that's a very big difference in Morality uh and that is just as and we learn it from aadesh by the splitting of the Red Sea right so the Egyptians are drowning and the M want to sing to Hashem and Hashem says my creatures the Egyptians are drowning in the sea it is not a time for Joy now keep in mind that God didn't say oh these are my creatures how can I how can I drown them he drowned them because they had to be destroyed but Hashem says you know it's not something to celebrate we don't celebrate even with porin by the way they make the point that you know the Jews killed their enemies on the 13th of Adar uh and they rested on the 14th and we celebrate the holiday of purm on the 14th or you know 15 in shushan it was you know a day later now it's been pointed out we don't celebrate the Day of a military Victory we don't celebrate the day that we destroyed our enemies we celebrate the days of Peace the days of Shalom okay so this is a very big difference so on one hand uh Israel is to their credit even though the IDF is not a religious Institution per se but I think they're animated they are pretty much animated by Jewish values I think it's part and parcel of uh the blood so to speak now the thing is collateral damage is though in unavoidable after you give the warnings after you give the leaflets after you make the phone calls and Hamas puts itself in hospitals and puts itself in schools and puts itself uh you know in residential areas uh and that's where they build the tunnels and they have human Shields of their own people if in order to get them those other people are hurt regrettable sad tragic but necessary so here is the thing that I even hate to say but based on R yakov's if it becomes necessary for civilians to die in order to get Kamas Not only would it be permitted for Palestinian people but even if God forbid God forbid it should never happen it would be Jewish people that would be dying in that course they would be like this is the concept of the involuntary must be willing to risk his life so to anybody uh if that's necessary for the war effort so therefore uh the bottom line is that rakov ketki op that whatever heter there is for PES in a private kidnapping so to speak would not apply in time of War where people have to assume the risks of their lives like in order to secure the military objective so bit we actually have three different views about this we have the view that simply says user because the mishna says that you have to be concerned with future dangers meaning even in a private kidnapping you cannot be even for unless it's and that is the sheet of the ramban meaning according to ramban you could not pay I mean you're not going to ask the Sha but you cannot pay to get your daughter Ransom from a kidnapp if it's excessive that's ramban the Other Extreme is tosos that everything is and then there's a middle view that that differentiates between wartime hostage takings and private kidnappings that even if private kidnappings P trumps everything when you're dealing with wartime everybody has to be willing to endanger their lives if necessary for the military success and therefore a hostage would be treated as a soldier in time of war in which uh we try to get them out if it doesn't endanger but if it would endanger the military effort by releasing terrorists uh then essentially they would have to be sacrificed this was rakov kamion I think referal sheer of Yu uh you know a very big takes the same takes the same position uh I'm not here to to pin on this as I say I I I could not look uh a parent in the eye and say your child has to be has to be sacrificed uh and I think the bottom line is that the government's decision does have some halic backing and uh indeed Raji YF approved similar things and re Yos so I'm read that wasn't during war um was not during Shalit was not during war you're correct so so maybe the war might the war might might change yeah you're correct yeah yeah how do we understand yeah so the question is a very good question uh the question is that the Angels were told in shamayim that they should not sing to God uh they should not rejoice because the Egyptians are drowning and we don't Rejoice uh when uh any human life is taken uh but the question is yeah so the Angels were told not to sing but the Jewish people themselves right after that was oir they sang a song of Triumph I mean isn't it the same problem hey what are you rejoicing what are you singing as y here uh if the enemy if the enemy uh drowned uh so that that is a very good question and some want to differentiate which may have relevance here between people who actually benefit in other words the angels are just celebrating something that didn't happen to them but when something happens to you there's andat permits you to be grateful to God but on the other hand I I I admit to you I have a little difficulty with that answer because if aashir would be written thanks to God for saving us then that's certainly a valid distinction but there's no question a Yash does talk about death and destruction meaning aashir is not only phrased in terms of thank you you took us from life you know from Death to life it is you know you they drowned like an Evan you know Etc so the terce is a little difficult but as I say the standard answer that's given is thatat does allow you to celebrate yeah in the past youve talked about the kalaha of um sacrificing one or a few for the benefit of the men how does that apply here yeah so that's that certainly uh does apply here and indeed um this would be the underlying basis in which if the many are going to be endangered so perhaps the few have to be sacrificed in other words that's exactly I think RAV yakov's point uh in time of war that just like right the the number of who will die is a relatively small but they're dying to protect a larger entity so the would fall under the same under the same rule um but again as I say uh others argue V versus sufff in fact let me mention a few variations of this particular problem uh let me talk about for a moment this is totally out of left field but but it is going to be connected uh the problem of the uh poison pill I'm not sure if the Army does this but I know they were talking about this this is where let's assume that you're a and you have information about security Israeli security the whereabouts of troops Etc and uh there is a fear that under torture under torture uh the torture may be so unbearable that you you will reveal information that may endanger other people so there was talk I honestly don't know if they do this of giving people a cyanide pill which you know that's what Nazis a lot of war criminal Nazi war criminals Herman Garing you know took a cyanide pill so he to avoid whatever to avoid I'm not sure what he gains I guess maybe it's less painful than being hung um and the like I always it's always struck me though that you know when someone is on death uh there you know they watch him so meticulously to be absolutely sure he doesn't kill himself you know it's not I mean they really do 247 you know that uh suicide watch or whatever it is even though he's going to be killed the next they got to be sure that we're going to do it he doesn't do it to himself but okay um so the so here's the interesting question Hally is a soldier allowed to Comm to commit suicide if he feels that Through Torture he's going to endanger the lives of other people now committing suicide is a very big AV so I think he's allowed to commit suicide for the following reason you can kill a Roda right you can kill a ro you can kill somebody that's endangering the lives of others so for example let's imagine that I see a Jewish guy who under torture is is about to reveal information that will endanger other people's lives I could shoot him so the if the person feels that he's going to endanger other lives he can pan that he's a Roda he's his own Ro he's his own Ro he's a radde right and therefore he can kill himself just as somebody else could could could kill him and the like uh so I I think that is a possibility but what's interesting is this does not mean that torture is an independent basis for suicide in other words that's that's another question meaning can a person kill themselves because torture is so excruciating that is a separate H question that may be a Heder but this is a different Nuance this is not you know I'm killing myself to avoid the torture I'm killing myself to avoid endangering the lives of others that's a different type of there for sure I think it would be much even if killing to avoid torture might not be but that's that's a separate issue some people will allow that that's actually relevant with um with uh euthanasia in other words can a can a person commits suicide if they're suffering excruciating unrelenting pain that cannot be treated it's a separate issue it's a separate issue I'm not going to go into that into that issue uh issue today um now another uh issue that comes up I'm just bringing up some miscellaneous issues is killing a terrorist once the terrorist is in custody now this is a big question uh you may remember there was a YouTube video there was an actual case of AAL where a terrorist was disabled and lying down on the ground and theal just went over to him put a gun to his head and shot him no no no the facts are in dispute the aru that the terrorist was reaching for a gun so the facts or whatever the facts are I have no idea but let let's assume in principle just for hypothetical that the terrorist does not have access to a weapon the terrorist is in Israeli custody uh Etc would you be allowed to kill a terrorist once the terrorist is disabled so I'm not I'm not really holding it out for a vote but okay so so so the of the would be that you cannot because theod of killing a terrorist is not to punish him for his bad behavior it's to prevent him that's Roda Roda Roda is not punishment it's very important to understand that that's why I had mentioned that a Roda can be a baby that's crying and giving away your whereabouts a Roda can be a good Jew who is being tortured who's going to reveal information in other words Roda is not about being a bad guy fetus a that's cor a fetus who endangers the mother's life the rambam says is a Roda so it's very important to understand Roda is not about punishing Roda is about preventing harm and once the harm is no longer going to be per uh perpetrated by this individual person there's no law of RI now this is pasus and yet the funny thing was again I mean I'm not going to prove anything from this but uh there was an interview with a uh somebody from hatah who uh met with Rim kvki now this is the guy talking not R kineski talking and he said he asked R kineski A sha what if a terrorist is brought for medical treatment and a a Jew is brought for medical treatment and the terrorist is more seriously hurt so under triage you would go to the terrorist first uh do you go to the Jew first or the terrorists first kineski said something that chak oh of course you go to the terrorist first so the guy was a little shocked and R said let me explain you go to the terrorist first you shoot him in the head says and then you take care of the Jew now I I don't know if this was meant as a joke and the truth is you know you can't even you know rely on these secondhand reports but in theory at least if I take it seriously R was basically saying you can kill a terrorist that's in a hospital now of course suffice it to say the other side would certainly do that to us that but that's a given but that's that's we don't we don't Define our Behavior Uh by their behavior when they're brought to trial that they can give him the death sentence okay so so let me differentiate there is no question that it is legitimate to give terrorists the death sentence that's not the question meaning for sure for sure for sure I I'm in favor of it I'm in favor of a death sentence for a terrorist but that's after they're Tried by a court me meaning if we're talking about vigilantism so vigilantism is M to prevent the guy from killing right I don't have to go to a basin before I shoot the Roa but on the other hand once he's in custody you got to have a judicial process right so that's going to be the problem so I'll leave it for for next week a little bit uh but this is the issue what possible hetcher would there be to kill a terrorist without a court proceeding uh based on the laws of R which seemingly don't apply yeah I think it's time to you