Nov 23, 2009 - tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).[26] ... Shalit became the first Israeli soldier captu
Gilad Shalit: Halacha Meets the Messy World A CURRENT EVENTS UNIT -Gary Levine November, 2009 TEACHERS’ GUIDE: Grade Levels: 7 – 12 * The Goal of this lesson/unit is to give students an opportunity to consider and discuss the various halachic perspectives being presented regarding the possibility of ransoming kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. * *There is an extensive amount of material collected here. Each teacher must decide how much of this material s/he might wish to utilize. Based on the grade level, the class level and the specific curricular goals the teacher may wish to reach, there is ample opportunity to add, omit or alter this material to suit the best interests of the class. The teacher might also wish to consider that extensive use of the material could service a unit of several lessons; more limited selection might be appropriate for a single lesson.
Overview: THE QUESTION: Gilad Shalit is a solider who was kidnapped by Palestinian Militants in June of 2006. The militants holding him have demanded the release of 1300 Palestinian militants held in Israeli jails, many of them convicted of murder and violent acts of terrorism. Should Israel release hundreds of convicted terrorists to ransom one kidnapped soldier? In considering the issue of the kidnap and ransom of Gilad Shalit from a halachic perspective, we find two primary approaches: o Although the Rabbis identify the redemption of captives as among the highest priorities of all mitzvot, the mishna, later codified by Rambam and others, declares that a captive cannot be redeemed for more than s/he is worth. o A number of reasons are offered as to why the case of Gilad Shalit should not be included in the category of captives who may not be ransomed for more than their value.
•
The material in this package presents these two approaches and explains the reasoning behind them. The teacher is asked to select material to present on this issue and to facilitate discussion and/or other methods of presentation or evaluation which call upon students to apply their knowledge, values and communication skills to the consideration of this issue.
•
1
Process The teacher should acquaint him/herself thoroughly with the background information provided, as well as materials for students in the package.
•
As noted above, based on the grade level, class level, etc. of the student, the teacher should select from the student materials and prepare packages of materials for the students.
•
After presenting the various points of view expressed in the halacha, the teacher should facilitate the class discussion. This is a lesson which calls for student evaluation and application, and the teacher must facilitate and, to some extent, guide the flow of the discussion, but should neither dominate the discussion nor unduly influence its outcome.
•
The teacher should determine what follow-up classwork, homework or additional research might be done by the students to further investigate this issue.
•
CONTENTS: 1.
BACKGROUND FOR TEACHERS
• Gilad Shalit – Wikipedia • Redeeming Captives – Rabbi Dovid Golinkin 2.
4 - 13 14 – 17
STUDENT MATERIALS • Photo of Gilad Shalit • Timeline of Gilad Shalit • Classic Sources o Mishna : a captive may not be redeemed for more than his value
o RAMBAM: codification of the law of the Mishna o Braita: an example in Mishnaic times of a captive
18 19 - 20 21 21
redeemed for more than his value
21
o Tosafot: a captive CAN be redeemed for more than his value under certain conditions
• Modern Documents o Rabbi David Silverberg: the law and exceptions o Rabbi Weiman-Kelman: Rabbi Goren v. Rabbi HaLevi o Isria Press: Summary of Editorials o YNet: Rabbis Oppose Negotiation for Shalit Hebrew English
22 22 - 23 23 24 - 25 25 26
o YNet: Progress on Shalit Can Help Relationships with Palestinians: An interesting approach as to why Shalit should be an exception to the law of the Mishna
2
26
o Should Rabbis Decide on Politics
Does halacha have a place in the modern democratic state?
o Can A Doctor Drive Home After Treating a Patient on Shabbat? Hebrew English
27 - 28 29 30
Although this question does not seem to be directly related to our question of ransoming Gilad Shalit, some have used this issue as a precedent to note that most halachists would allow the violation, even of a Torah law, for the sake of encouraging saving lives in the future. Some have suggested that it would be demoralizing for the soldiers of the IDF to feel that, should they be kidnapped or captured, their government would not be willing to ransom them from their captives.
A final note: I would ask that teachers utilizing any of this material take a few moments to let me know how the lesson(s) went and perhaps to offer some suggestions as how to how lessons like this might be improved in future. Thank you. Gary Levine
[email protected]
3
Gilad Shalit From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Gilad Shalit Born 28 August 1986 (age 23) Place of birth
Nahariya, Israel
Allegiance
Israel
Rank
Staff Sergeant[1]
Unit
Armor Corps
Battles/wars
Operation Summer Rains
Gilad Shalit (Hebrew: שליט גלעד, born 28 August 1986) is an Israeli soldier who was abducted[2] on 25 June 2006 by Palestinian terrorists in a cross-border raid. He was abducted[3] through the Kerem Shalom crossing (in Israel), and has been held as a hostage in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since. Shalit, 19 years old and with the rank of corporal in the IDF's Armor Corps at the time of his capture, has since been promoted to staff sergeant.[1] He was the first Israeli soldier captured[4][5] by Palestinian militants since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994.[6] Shalit holds French citizenship, a fact that encouraged France and the European Union to be involved to some extent in efforts to release him.[7] He also received Italian citizenship after his abduction.[8][9][10][11][12][13] Hamas has refused requests from the International Committee of the Red Cross to allow the ICRC to visit Shalit. Several human rights organizations have stated that the terms and conditions of Shalit's detention are contrary to international humanitarian law. In exchange for his release, Hamas is demanding the release of 1,000 Palestinian prisoners held in Israel, many convicted by Israeli courts on terrorism charges.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which released a report in September 2009, called for Shalit to be released.[22] Contents [hide] 1 Personal life 2 Capture 3 Rescue attempt 4 Diplomatic efforts 5 Israeli society perceptions and activities related to Gilad Shalit 6 Developments and notable events in 2008-09 7 International law 8 Honorary citizenships 8.1 Paris 8.2 Rome 8.3 Miami 8.4 New Orleans 9 See also 10 References 11 External links 4
Personal life Shalit was born on 28 August 1986 in Nahariya, Israel, and raised from the age of two in Mitzpe Hila in the Western Galilee. He graduated with distinction from Manor Kabri High School. Shalit began military service in the Israel Defense Forces in July 2005, and "despite a low medical profile, he preferred to serve in a combat unit, following his elder brother Yoel into the armored corps."[23] He holds dual Israeli and French citizenship (his father Noam Shalit's family originated in France).[24]
Capture Early on Sunday morning, 25 June 2006, Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants who ambushed an Israeli army post on the Israeli side of the southern Gaza Strip border after crossing through an underground tunnel near the Kerem Shalom border. During the attack, two Palestinian militants[25] and two IDF soldiers were killed and three others wounded, aside from Shalit, who reportedly suffered a broken left hand and a light shoulder wound after his tank was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).[26] Shalit's captors issued a statement on Monday, 26 June 2006, offering information on Shalit if Israel agreed to release all female Palestinian prisoners and all Palestinian prisoners under the age of 18.[27] The statement came from the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the Popular Resistance Committees (which includes members of Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas), and a previously unknown group calling itself the Army of Islam. On 14 June 2007 Israel Army Radio published a report that said that the army had received a specific warning on 24 June 2006, the day before Shalit was captured, about a planned abduction. According to the report, Israeli security forces entered the Gaza Strip on 24 June 2006 and captured two brothers described as Hamas members. The report said that the brothers were transferred to Israel for interrogation, and that the information extracted formed the basis for the specific warning that militants would try to enter Israel through tunnels to capture soldiers stationed near Gaza.[28][29] Shalit became the first Israeli soldier captured[5] by Palestinian forces since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994.[30] His abduction[31] and the following cross-border raid by Hezbollah, resulting in the abductions of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev into Lebanon, occurred prior to the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon during summer 2006. Hamas high-ranking commander Abu Jibril Shimali, whom Israel considers responsible for coordinating the capture, was killed during the violent clashes between Hamas and the al-Qaida-affiliated Jund Ansar Allah organization in Gaza in August 2009.[32]
Rescue attempt Main article: 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict
5
Israeli forces entered Khan Yunis on 28 June 2006 to search for Shalit. According to David Siegel, a spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., “Israel did everything it could in exhausting all diplomatic options and gave Mahmoud Abbas the opportunity to return the captured Israeli… This operation can be terminated immediately, conditioned on the release of Gilad Shalit.”[33] On the same day, four Israeli Air Force aircraft flew over Syrian President Bashar Assad's palace in Latakia, as an IDF spokesperson said that Israel views the Syrian leadership as a sponsor of Hamas.[34] The operation did not succeed in finding Shalit. 277 Palestinians and 5 Israeli soldiers were killed.[citation needed] On 29 June, the commander of the Israeli Southern Command, Aluf Yoav Galant, confirmed that Shalit was still in Gaza. Israel's Minister of Justice, Haim Ramon, added that Shalit was being held in southern Gaza, specifically. The military correspondent for the Israel Broadcasting Authority said that Shalit was being held captive in Rafah, and that there was indication that he was still alive. However, IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Miri Regev said: “we are not convinced he is being held in southern Gaza… [only] that he is being held in Gaza”.[35] On 1 July, the BBC reported that Shalit had been treated by a Palestinian doctor for a broken hand and a light shoulder wound. Israeli governmental authorities threatened that the “sky will fall” if Shalit is harmed.[36] On the same day, Shalit's captors issued another demand to the Israelis, demanding that Israel release an additional 1,000 Palestinian prisoners (in addition to all female and young prisoners, as previously demanded) and end Israel's incursions into Gaza.[37] Two days later, the captors issued a 24-hour ultimatum for meeting their demands, threatening unspecified consequences if Israel refused.[38] Hours after the ultimatum was issued, Israel officially rejected the demands, stating that: "there will be no negotiations to release prisoners".[39]
Diplomatic efforts After Shalit's capture, the Papal Nuncio to Israel, Archbishop Antonio Franco, made an unsuccessful attempt to secure Shalit's release via the Catholic Church's Gaza-based parish.[40] In September 2006, Egyptian mediators received a letter written by Shalit which he wrote that he was alive and well. The handwriting was confirmed to be that of Shalit.[41] In October, Egypt was also reported to negotiating with Hamas on behalf of Israel for Shalit's release.[42]
in be
On 28 October 2006, the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) said in a statement that all three parties had agreed to a proposal by Egyptian mediators regarding Shalit's release. The PRC did not provide details, but said that the Egyptian proposal would include the release of Palestinians held by Israel.[43] It was the first time since Shalit's capture that any of the factions indicated that his release might be imminent. In November 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal indicated that Shalit was alive and in good health.[44] On 9 January 2007, Abu Mujahed, a spokesman for the captors, asserted that Shalit “has not 6
been harmed at all ... He is being treated in accordance with Islamic values regulating the treatment of prisoners of war.” However, he threatened, “We have managed to keep the soldier in captivity for six months and we have no problem keeping him for years.”[45] On 17 January 2007, one of the captor groups, the Army of Islam headed by Mumtaz Dormush, claimed that Shalit was held exclusively by Hamas.[46] On 8 March 2007, The Jerusalem Post reported that an agreement had been reached with Hamas over the number of prisoners Israel would release in return for Shalit. Israel and Hamas were still negotiating specific prisoners that Hamas wanted freed in return for Shalit.[47] On 7 April 2007, it was reported that Shalit's captors had transferred to Israel, through Egyptian mediators, a list of Palestinian prisoners they wanted freed. The list included approximately 1,300 names, some of which were high-ranking Fatah members.[citation needed] On 4 February 2008, it was reported that Hamas had sent Shalit's family a second letter written by him. The handwriting was confirmed to be that of Shalit.[48] On 25 June 2007, a year after Shalit's abduction, the military wing of Hamas, Iz a-Din alQassam, released an audio tape in which Shalit is heard sending a message to his family, friends, and the Israeli government and army, and appealing for a prisoner-swap deal to be reached to secure his release. Shalit said that his medical condition was deteriorating, and that he required immediate and lengthy hospitalization. Gilad's father Noam Shalit met with former United States President Jimmy Carter during Carter's April 2008 visit to Israel. Carter planned to visit Khaled Meshal of Hamas in Damascus later. Noam Shalit said that the fact that Carter is not considered pro-Israel could be beneficial in securing his son's release.[49] On 9 June 2008, it was reported that Hamas sent Shalit's family a third letter. The group had promised to send them a third letter after mediation from Carter. The handwriting was confirmed to be Shalit's.[50] On 12 August 2008, Hamas said that it was suspending talks on Shalit's release, demanding a complete lifting of the Israeli siege. The decision angered Egypt, a mediator for Shalit's release. Hamas criticized the Egyptians for linking the opening of the Rafah border crossing with Shalit's release, a condition to which Hamas refuses to agree.[51] On 20 August 2008, in his briefing to the Security Council, the Under-Secretary-General of the UN appeared to link the decision to release 200 Palestinian prisoners to the case,[52] though the Hamas spokesman saw it as an attempt to strengthen Palestinian internal divisions by releasing only those loyal to the Fatah faction.[53] Israeli society perceptions and activities related to Gilad Shalit Israeli public is divided regarding the issue of negotiating the release of Shalit in exchange for a large number of Palestinians prisoners jailed in Israel. There are two opposing camps. One camp supports the release of Shalit on Hamas's conditions. According to the Dahaf Polling Institute, 69 percent of Israelis favors this deal, which would include the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and the deportation of some of them outside the territory of the Palestinian National Authority[54] or restricting them to Gaza. A second camp says that Shalit should be released, but not on Hamas's conditions. They 7
argue that the correct approach is to protect Israelis if the prisoners are released. According to the Dahaf Polling Institute, 22 percent of Israelis support are in this camp.[54] Daniel Bar-Tal, a professor at Tel Aviv University, says "Here we see the basic dilemmas between the individual and the collective, and we see victim pitted against victim. Gilad Shalit is a victim who was violently kidnapped, in a way that Israelis do not consider to be a normative means of struggle. Therefore, one side says, he should be returned at any price. But the families of those killed in terrorist attacks and the people who were wounded in those attacks are victims, too, and they say that no price should be paid to the murderers. And it is truly a dilemma, because no side is right, and no side is wrong."[54] Others believe that the disagreement among Israelis represents rifts and changes within Israeli society. Attorney Dalia Gavriely-Nur, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, says that the camp opposing the prisoners deal is holding onto a view of collectivist society, in which the individual was expected to sacrifice himself for the good of society; the camp supporting the prisoner release is expressing, however, a high value on the sanctity of life, that symbolizes a shift to a more privatized society.[54] Noam Shalit, father of Gilad Shalit, urged the UN to take all possible measures to implement the findings of the Goldstone report. The Goldstone report calls for the immediate release of Gilad Shalit and, while Shalit is in captivity, for access to him by the International Red Cross.[55]
Gilad Still Lives; February 2009
On the evening of Shalit's 23rd birthday, on 28 August 2009, thousands of people attended a prayer rally for Gilad at the Western Wall, and dozens of activists protested outside Defense Ministry headquarters in Tel Aviv, slamming Defense Minister Ehud Barak and criticizing IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi.[56] Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) organized in August 2009 a pro-Shalit campaign on the social networking site Twitter. Twitter users drove Shalit's name to the second-highest trend on the day of his 23rd birthday. Tweets for Shalit ranged from the demand "Free Shalit" to requests for international supervision of the case.[57] In several incidents during 2009, the leaders of the campaign to free Shalit demonstrated at the prisons where Palestinian detainees are held, preventing visits by Palestinian prisoners' families.[58][59][60] One such demonstration at the Erez crossing on the Gaza border blocked the passage of food and medicine to the Gaza Strip.[61] At Tel-Aviv Port on 19 March 2010, 10 days before Passover, a flash mob demonstrated to raise awareness for Shalit's safe return home. The event, with 212 AMHSI (Alexander Muss High School in Israel) students from all over the United States and 15 Israeli students from Mosenson High School, was performed to the song "One Day", by AMHSI alumnus Matisyahu 8
and remixed by Israeli trance band Infected Mushroom.[62] Israel says it will not ease its blockade of Gaza until Shalit is freed. The captured soldier's long plight has become a festering sore in Israel, with large, tearful rallies on his birthdays and frequent media appearances by his father. Reflecting wide support for the cause, one Israeli TV anchor ends his daily newscast by mournfully reciting how many days the soldier has been held captive. Lately, however, Israeli opponents of such a deal have been speaking out, warning that releasing top Palestinian militants could result in the deaths of many Israelis in renewed attacks — as has happened after previous exchanges,[63] as well as increased Palestinian motivation to kidnap more soldiers in the future. Israeli analyst Dan Schueftan has called the possible swap deal "the greatest significant victory for terrorism that Israel has made possible".[64]
Developments and notable events in 2008-09 See also: 2008 Israel-Hamas ceasefire: Gilad Shalit and Gaza War In early December 2008, during a Hamas rally in Gaza City to mark 21 years since its founding, a Hamas member masquerading as Shalit was paraded by Hamas militiamen.[65] Hamas' refusal to negotiate about the status of Shalit or even to provide further information about his status strained the temporary Israel-Hamas cease-fire enacted in June 2008.[66] At the start of the Gaza War, Hamas claimed that Shalit had been wounded by Israeli fire.[67] On 11 January 2009, Abu Marzuk, Deputy Chief of the Hamas Political Ministry, told the London-based Arabic daily, Al-Hayat that "Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been. The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard since he is as good as a cat or less."[68] On 22 January 2009, Israel indicated that it wanted to swap Palestinians held in Israeli jails for Shalit as part of a longer-term truce after the three-week military operation in Gaza.[69] On 26 January 2009, it was reported that Israel was offering to free 1,000 prisoners in exchange for Shalit.[70] On 16 March 2009, it was reported that a prisoner-swap deal to gain Shalit's release was close, and the negotiation team was urged to wrap up the deal. Israel agreed to release more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, but there were still disagreements over the number of prisoners.[71] The negotiation team however deadlocked over the release of 450 "heavyweight" prisoners. According to a senior source in the PM's Office, "a deal cannot be finalized on such terms, and there's nothing to vote on (in the government session) Tuesday".[72] In May 2009, President Shimon Peres invited Shalit's family to meet Pope Benedict XVI at the President's residence in Jerusalem.[73] In June 2009, Israeli human rights group B'Tselem published in the Palestinian newspaper AlQuds in the West Bank an ad, calling on Hamas to release Shalit "immediately and unconditionally", but the Gaza-based daily 'Palestine' refused to print it, according to the B'Tselem spokeswoman.[74] In July 2009, Hamas TV in Gaza broadcast a short animated movie that depicted Shalit chained to a jail cell wall, pleading with a Palestinian boy to be set free. The boy refuses, 9
saying he has relatives in Israeli prisons.[75] In July 2009, Noam Shalit, Gilad's father, testified before the Goldstone Committee, which was investigating on behalf of the United Nations illegal conduct by combatants during Gaza War. Shalit told the committee that his son has lived without human rights for three years, and that no one, including the Red Cross, knows what happened to him or paid him a visit.[76] The Jerusalem Post reported that they obtained photographs showing children at the graduation ceremony of a Hamas-run summer camp, reenacting Shalit's abduction.[77] The photos were reported to show Osama Mazini, a senior Hamas political official in charge of the Shalit negotiations with Israel, attending the play.[78] On 30 September 2009, Israel announced that it would release 20 female Palestinian detainees and prisoners in exchange for a video proving Shalit was still alive.[79] The trade took place successfully on 2 October. 19 of the 20 Palestinian captives were released; the last one was released one day later. The video, the only contact from Shalit other than three letters written by him and an audio tape released in June 2007, was released to the public at around 4:00 in the afternoon on Israeli television. In the video, Shalit seems healthy, but appears a lot skinnier then he used to be. He addresses Netanyahu and his parents, and reminisces about times he spent with his family. He shows a newspaper dated Monday, 14 September 2009.[80]
International law Since 2006, the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly asked Hamas to allow visits by the ICRC to ascertain Shalit's conditions of detention and treatment, but Hamas refused the requests. An ICRC representative said that under international humanitarian law Shalit is entitled to regular and unconditional contacts with his family.[81] On 25 June 2007, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem issued a statement saying "international humanitarian law absolutely prohibits taking and holding a person by force in order to compel the enemy to meet certain demands, while threatening to harm or kill the person if the demands are not met", and thus holding Shalit as a hostage to their demands is a war crime.[82] B'Tselem also noted that denying access to ICRC visitations is also a violation of international law.[82] Israeli NGO Monitor said that Shalit's abductors breach several provisions of the Third Geneva Convention, e.g., the right to humane treatment (Art. 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (Art. 23); and the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (Art. 126).[83] Human Rights Watch has also stated that Hamas authorities are obligated by the laws of war to allow Shalit to correspond with his family, and noted that three letters and a voice recording cannot be counted as regular correspondence. HRW has also called to receive visits from the ICRC and said that prolonged incommunicado detention of Shalit is cruel and inhumane and may amount to torture.[84] A U.N. fact-finding mission headed by Judge Richard Goldstone assigned to investigate the Gaza War, which released its report in September 2009, called for Shalit to be released.[22]
Honorary citizenships Paris 10
On 16 December 2008, Shalit was named an honorary citizen of Paris, France, after Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë and the City Council unanimously voted to give the title to Shalit. The group Collective Freedom for Gilad praised the decision, stating "it is with immense joy that we have welcomed the news, which shows how well the French state is mobilized at every level to make it possible for a young man to regain his freedom and family". The French town of Raincy has also named Shalit an honorary citizen, and the Grenoble City Hall hung his photo on their building facade the week of 10 December 2008.[85] Rome During a public menorah-lighting ceremony on 21 December 2008, Gianni Alemanno, the Mayor of Rome, Italy, said that a proposal by Rome Jewish Community President Riccardo Pacifici (the grandson of Riccardo Reuven Pacifici) to make Shalit an honorary citizen of Rome was "an excellent idea." Alemanno added that he wanted to extend the honor "to give a sign of solidarity to the Jewish community."[86] On 16 April 2009, during a formal evening celebrating Israel's 60th anniversary, Alemanno announced that the city declared Shalit an honorary citizen. Alemanno said that the Shalit affair does not concern the State of Israel alone, but the whole of humanity.[87] On 1 July 2009, Alemanno conferred the honor to Shalit at a ceremony and presented a parchment declaration to Shalit's father, Noam. Alemanno said that making Shalit an honorary citizen was "a gesture of high symbolic value, with which Roma chooses to salute the values of life, of solidarity and of respect for the human rights." He added, "You cannot win using violence, kidnapping and ransom."[88] Miami On 23 April 2009, Shalit was made an honorary citizen of Miami. The move was announced during a municipality council meeting, which also approved a bill declaring Israel's Independence Day as "Israel Day" in Miami.[89] New Orleans The city of New Orleans made Shalit an honorary citizen on 25 June 2009, the third anniversary of his capture.[90]
References ^ a b "Parents of Gilad Shalit received their son's ranks of Staff Sergeant" (Ynet.co.il) ^ [1][2] ^ [3] - Haaretz, [4] - UPI: - "[K]idnapped soldier Gilad Shalit" ^ 'Israel Threatens to Widen Conflict Over Captured Soldier' by Ian Fisher and Steven Erlanger, New York Times ^ a b 'Militants issue Israel hostage demands' (ABC) ^ "Israel seizes Hamas legislators". BBC. 29 June 2006.
- Cpl Gilad Shalit, 19: First Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians since 1994
- Amnesty International, the human rights group, called for all hostages to be released [...]. ^ "French diplomats: Kidnapped soldier holds French citizenship". Israelinsider. 26 June 2006. Retrieved 30 June 2008. ^ (Italian) L'Occidentale, Da tre anni il soldato Shalit è nella mani di Hamas, 25 giugno 2009 ^ Gilad Shalit's birthday marked ^ 'Palestinian militants demand release of prisoners' (CNN) ^ The Ebb And Flow of Hope, Der Spiegel ^ US Gov, United States House of Representatives
11
^ 'Soundbite: Gilad Shalit, hostage Israeli soldier', Reuters ^ [5] ^ Dealʼs collapse extends Shalit saga ^ "Who are the deadly terrorists Israel refuses to release for Shalit?" ^ "Israel to publish Hamas prisoner list" ^ [6] ^ [7] ^ [8] ^ [9] ^ a b http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/15/un-gaza-war-israel-hamas "Inquiry into Gaza conflict singles out Israeli policy towards Palestinians for most serious condemnation" ^ "Behind the Headlines: Six months in terrorist captivity". Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 11 January 2007. Retrieved 13 January 2007. ^ Appel, Yoav, et al. (25 June 2006). "Shalit's dad: ʻHope is all we have leftʼ". Jerusalem Post. ^ Q&A: Israeli soldier held in Gaza, BBC News, Monday, 25 June 2007. ^ Hoffman, Gil, et al. (29 June 2006). "Shalitʼs health better than first feared". Jerusalem Post. ^ "Militants issue Israel hostage demands". CNN. 26 June 2006. ^ "Gaza fighting impeding Schalit talks". The Jerusalem Post. 14 June 2007. Retrieved 11 April 2009. ^ "Israel captures pair in Gaza raid". BBC. 24 June 2006. Retrieved 1 August 2006. ^ "Israel seizes Hamas legislators". BBC. 29 June 2006.
- Cpl Gilad Shalit, 19: First Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians since 1994
- Amnesty International, the human rights group, called for all hostages to be released [...]. ^ 'Shalit's father expresses hope Hamas is willing to negotiate' By Avi Issacharoff and Jonathan Lis, Haaretz ^ Hamas: Head of Al-Qaida affiliate killed in Gaza, Haaretz, 18 August 2009 ^ Rosenberg, David (28 June 2006). "Israeli Army Enters Gaza to Find Kidnapped Soldier (update 2)". Bloomberg.com. ^ Hanan Greenberg (28 June 2006). "IAF: Aerial flight over Assad's palace". Ynetnews. Retrieved 25 January 2008. ^ "Today in the News". Israel Broadcasting Authority. 29 June 2006. ^ "Israel: ʻSky will fallʼ if soldier is harmed". Times of Oman. 5 July 2006. ^ "FACTBOX—The crisis over Israelʼs captured soldier". Reuters. 2 July 2006. ^ "Palestinian militants issue ultimatum to Israel". Reuters. 3 July 2006. ^ "Minister Ramon: IDF operations in Gaza will be ʻfar far worseʼ if Shalit harmed". Haaretz. 3 July 2006. ^ "Popeʼs rep tried for Shalitʼs release". Jerusalem Post. 19 July 2006. ^ "Proof of life letter from captive Israeli soldier". News Interactive. 15 September 2006. ^ "Progress on Israel-Palestinian prisoner swap-Hamas" Alternet, 26 October 2006 ^ "Shalit captivity 'to end in days'". al Jazeera. 26 October 2006. Archived from the original on 27 November 2006. ^ "Hamas predicts new uprising if no peace progress" Asharq Al-Awsat, 25 November 2006 ^ Abu Toameh, Khaled (9 January 2007). ""We're ready to keep Shalit for years"". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 13 January 2007. ^ Army of Islam: IDF soldier Shalit held exclusively by Hamas Ha'aretz, 18 January 2007 ^ "Schalit agreement 'all but finished'" The Jerusalem Post, 8 March 2007 ^ "Sources: Hamas gives Israel letter from Gilad Shalit" Ha'aretz, 4 February 2008 ^ Ha'aretz Service and News Agencies (13 April 2008). "Noam Shalit: The fact that Carter isn't pro-Israel may be beneficial". Ha'aretz. ^ "Shalit's father: Gilad begs for his life in new letter" Ha'aretz, 10 June 2008 ^ "Hamas says not interested in renewing Shalit negotiations" Ha'aretz, Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel ^ United Nations Security Council Verbotim Report meeting 5963 page 2, Lynn Pascoe Under-SecretaryGeneral for Political Affairs on 20 August 2008 (retrieved 22 August 2008) ^ "Israel to release 200 Palestinian prisoners". The Irish Times. 17 August 2008.
12
^ a b c d Prisoners Dilemma, JPost, 25 March 2009 ^ Haaretz, 1 Mar. 2010, "Noam Shalit Urges UN to Implement Goldstone Report," http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1153080.html ^ http://[www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251145136945&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Shalit family marks Gilad's 23rd b'day] JPost, 28 August 2009 ^ 'Tweet4Schalit' campaign reaches No. 2 spot in Twitter, JPost, 27 August 2009 ^ Haaretz. "Return Gilad Shalit, but not at any price." by Gideon Levy. 30 Aug. 2009. Retrieved: 30 August 2009 ^ Israelis demand Red Cross visit Shalit, UPI, 25 August 2009 ^ Protesters block security prisoners' visits at Sharon Prison, YNET, 23 March 2009 ^ Haaretz. "Return Gilad Shalit, but not at any price." by Gideon Levy. 30 Aug. 2009. Retrieved: 30 August 2009. ^ AMHSI dance for Gilad Shalit, AMHSI, YouTube.com, 23 March 2010. Retrieved 16 April 2010. ^ Hamas, Israel deal: 20 prisoners for soldier video By Mark Lavie (AP) ^ [//www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2010/01/mil-100102-voa03.htm Israeli Warplanes Bomb Gaza Tunnels] ^ Mock-Schalit paraded in Hamas rally, Jerusalem Post, 14 Dec 2008 ^ Gaza Truce May Be Revived by Necessity. By Ethan Bronner. The New York Times. 19 December 2008. ^ Psychological Tricks to Demoralize the Enemy, Spiegel, Jan.16, 2009 ^ Hamas: Shalit ʻno longer interests usʼ, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 11 January 2009. ^ Prisoner swap ^ New York Daily News report on Shalit ^ Federman, Josef (16 March 2009). "Israeli envoys race to free captive soldier". Google. Associated Press. Retrieved 17 March 2009. ^ "Palestinians: Swap talks deadlocked over 'heavyweight' prisoners". Ynet. 17 March 2009. Retrieved 17 March 2009. ^ Peres invites Gilad Shalit's family to meet pope ^ B'Tselem call to free Shalit banned in Gaza , Ynet, 25 June 2009 ^ Hamas taunts Israel with Gilad Shalit cartoon, Haaretz, 7 July 2009 ^ Noam Shalit to UN: My son's abduction was a war crime, Haaretz, 7 July 2009 ^ Gaza campers stage 'Shalit abduction' at final ceremony JPost, 27 July 2009 ^ Children stage Shalit kidnapping, UPI, 27 July 2009 ^ Bousso, Ron (30 Sept 2009). "Israel to free prisoners for info on captured soldier". AFP. Retrieved 30 September 2009. ^ "Trade for Shalit info completed". Jerusalem Post. 20 October 2009. Retrieved 2 October 2009. ^ Gaza: ICRC urges Hamas to allow captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit regular contact with his family, ICRC, 18-06-2009 ^ a b "Holding Gilad Shalit as a hostage is a war crime" - B'Tselem press release (25 June 2007) ^ "Exploitation of International Law". NGO Monitor. 21 January 2009. ^ Gaza: Allow Shalit Contact With Family, (and) with International Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, 24 June 2009 ^ "Shalit named citizen of Paris". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 24 June 2009. ^ "Rome's mayor favors giving Shalit citizenship". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 23 December 2008. Retrieved 24 June 2009. ^ Khoury, Jack (31 March 2009). "Noam Shalit: Netanyahu must outdo Olmert's attempts to release Gilad". Haaretz. Retrieved 24 June 2009. ^ Shalit named honorary Roman citizen, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 2 July 2009. ^ Benhorin, Yitzhak (23 April 2009). "Miami names Shalit honorary citizen". Ynetnews. Retrieved 24 June 2009. ^ 25 Jun 2009 , Schalit demo held at Defense Ministry [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit
13
Ransoming Captive Jews An important commandment calls for the redemption of Jewish prisoners, but how far should this mitzvah be taken? By Rabbi David Golinkin
To most American Jews, the issue of ransoming captives (pidyon shvuyim) may seem remote, but to Israelis, it is very much a real question. Numerous times in Israel's history, the government has been faced with the question of whether to trade large numbers of Palestinian or other prisoners for a handful of Israeli captives. In the following, Rabbi Golinkin surveys halakhic (Jewish legal) literature regarding the issue of redeeming captives. Excerpted with permission from the website of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, which has the complete text of Rabbi Golinkin's responsum (rabbinic decision) with footnotes.
Rabbinic Literature & Medieval Jewish History Anyone who surveys this topic historically is struck by the fact that many thousands of Jews were captured and held for ransom throughout Jewish history and that Jewish communities went to extraordinary lengths to redeem captives. Indeed, the Talmud (Bava Batra 8b) calls pidyon shvuyim a "mitzvah rabbah" (great mitzvah) and says that captivity is worse than starvation and death. Maimonides rules that he who ignores ransoming a captive is guilty of transgressing commandments such as "you shall not harden your heart" (Deuteronomy 15:7); "you shall not stand idly by the blood of your brother" (Leviticus 19:16); and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18).
And one who delays in ransoming a captive is considered like a murderer (Yoreh Deah 252:3). Indeed, Maimonides himself wrote letters exhorting his fellow Jews to redeem captives and collected money for pidyon shvuyim.
The Exception to the Rule It would seem from the above that pidyon shvuyim is an absolute mitzvah, which must be followed at all times. But there is one major exception, as explained in the Mishnah (Gittin 4:6 = Bavli Gittin 45a): "One does not ransom captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam (literally: "fixing the world"; for the good order of the world; as a precaution for the general good) and one does not help captives escape because of Tikkun Olam." This Mishnah was codified by the standard codes of Jewish law. The Babylonian Talmud (ibid.) gives two different explanations for this takkanah (rabbinic enactment): 14
A)
"because of the [financial] burden on the community";
B) "so that they [=the robbers] should not seize more captives"--i.e., paying a high ransom for captives will encourage kidnappers to kidnap more Jews and demand still higher ransoms. The Talmud does not decide which explanation is correct, so halakhic authorities throughout the ages stressed one or the other, leading to different conclusions. Rashi, for example, says that if you accept the first explanation, a relative could pay an excessive ransom, because that does not place a financial burden on the community; whereas according to the second explanation, a relative may not pay the high ransom because that will still encourage the kidnappers to kidnap more Jews.
Was the Mishnah in Gittin Followed in Practice? The standard explanation for "more than their value" is the amount that captive would fetch if he/she were sold as a slave. Even so, despite, the clear language of the takkanah in the Mishnah, we know from the Talmud, the commentaries, the Cairo Genizah, and the responsa literature that they were many exceptions to the rule: 1) The very next sentence in Gittin (45a) says that "Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter for 13,000 gold dinars." Thirteen and 13,000 are typical round numbers in the Talmud, but Levi must still have paid far more than she was worth. Indeed, Abaye immediately adds that Levi may have acted against the will of the Sages. 2) A beraita (a teaching of the Tannaim, the mishnaic Sages) in Ketubot 52a-b says that if a wife is taken captive, the husband may pay up to 10 times what she is worth the first time; after that, he may redeem her or not redeem her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, echoing the Mishnah in Gittin, rules that the husband may not pay more than she is worth because of Tikkun Olam. But the Tanna Kamma, the "First Tanna," obviously disagreed with the Mishnah in Gittin and ruled that a husband may pay 10 times what his wife is worth. 3) Another beraita in Gittin (58a) relates that R. Yehoshua ben Hannania was in Rome and they showed him a handsome Jewish boy in prison. When he tested the boy and saw that he knew the Bible by heart, he said: "I am certain he will become a legal authority! I will not leave here until I redeem him for whatever price they name. They said: he did not leave until he redeemed him for much money." The little boy grew up to become Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Tosafot [a group of medieval Talmud commentators] derive from this story that when there is sakkanat nefashot (mortal danger), one may pay more than the captive is worth. 4) Another opinion in Tosafot (ibid. and to 45a) says that we derive from this story about the young scholar that one may redeem a Sage for more than he is worth. 5) A third opinion in Tosafot (45a) says that we derive from this story that after the 15
destruction of the Temple, Jews are targets in any case and paying a high ransom will not cause more or less kidnapping. 6) Furthermore, we know from the Cairo Genizah that the normal ransom for a captive was 33 dinars, but Jews 7) R. David ibn Zimra--the Radbaz (Egypt and Israel, 1479-1573)--says in his responsa that "all Jews are already accustomed to redeem their captives more than their value in the marketplace, for an old man or minor are only worth 20 dinars and yet they are redeemed for 100 dinars or more. This is because the reason for the Mishnah is that they should not seize more captives, but we see in our day that the kidnappers do not set out in the first place to capture Jews, but rather whoever they can find." He further says that even if Jews pay more ransom for Jews than non-Jews do, that is because the captive is a Sage (see above) or because there is a danger that the captive will be forced to convert (this latter argument is his own invention). In other words, the Radbaz goes to great lengths to justify the custom in his time of ignoring the Mishnah in Gittin. 8) Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Poland, 1510-1574) also testifies in his Yam Shel Shlomo (to Gittin 4:6) that the Jews of Togarma (Turkey) in his day redeem captives for far more that they are worth, "since they are willing to overlook the financial burden on the community." Thus, to summarize, the Mishnah in Gittin says one may not redeem captives for more than their value, and this law was codified by all the standard codes of Jewish law. But in practice, many talmudic Sages and medieval rabbis found ways to circumvent that Mishnah by interpretation or by creating exceptions to the rule.
Recent Responsa Since 1971, many rabbis have written responsa or halakhic articles about our current dilemma. Most have ruled that Israel may not exchange hundreds or thousands of terrorists for a few Israeli soldiers. We shall summarize the opinions of Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who was against such exchanges, and of Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, who justified Israel's actions in 1985 after the fact. Rabbi Goren [former chief rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces and later of the State of Israel] says that we must learn the law from the Mishnah in Gittin that we do not pay more than their value. It is true that Tosafot in Gittin 58a said that when there is danger to the captive we may indeed pay more than the captive is worth. But Ramban (Spain, 1195-1270) and Rashba (Spain, 1235-1310) disagree. Furthermore, all captivity in ancient times was dangerous (see Bava Batra 8b quoted above), and the Mishnah nonetheless ruled that one does not pay more than the captive's value because this will encourage the kidnappers to kidnap more Jews and endanger the public. He adds that the safety of one or a few Jews in captivity does not take precedence 16
over the safety of the entire public. In addition, he agrees with the Radbaz, and not R. Yosef Karo, that a person does not have to put himself in possible danger in order to save his fellow Jew from definite danger. Finally, in our case, freeing hundreds or thousands of terrorists definitely endangers the public because they will all be free to attack Israel and to take more hostages. Therefore, everything Israel did is against the halakhah of the Mishnah and the legal authorities and against the security of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, says Rabbi Goren. Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, who was Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, admits that Rabbi Goren's ruling, based on Gittin and on the rulings of leading authorities, is "clear and correct." Nonetheless, he disagrees with Rabbi Goren. All of the sources quoted deal with robbers who kidnap people for money, but we are dealing with a war based on Palestinian nationalism. They will continue to kidnap Jews regardless of what we do, so the price we pay for captives is not a factor and does not increase terror. In our case, we need halakhic innovation just as R. Yehoshua innovated that one may pay excessive ransom for a Sage and just as Tosafot innovated that the Mishnah doesn't apply after the Destruction. The Radbaz too innovated a lenient approach as we saw above. The Government of Israel decided that if an Israeli soldier sees that the State will not redeem Israeli soldiers for a high price, he or she will prefer retreat to capture. This too can be considered a halakhic innovation. Therefore, Rabbi Halevi does not think that the State of Israel acted against Jewish law in exchanging 1150 terrorists for 3 Israeli soldiers.
Summary and Conclusions We have seen that pidyon shvuyim is a major value in our tradition and that Jews have exerted great efforts to redeem captives. However, we do not pay excessive ransom "mipney tikkun olam," for the public good. In other words, the public takes precedence over the individual, even if this endangers the individual. Exchanging hundreds or thousands of terrorists for one Israeli encourages kidnapping of Israelis, and frees hundreds or thousands of terrorists who will pick up their weapons and attack Israel. In other words, it endangers the public and should not be done.
Rabbi David Golinkin, Ph.D., is president and rector of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, where he teaches Talmud and Jewish law, and he heads the Va'ad Halakhah (committee on Jewish law) of the Masorti, or Conservative, movement's Rabbinical Assembly in Israel.
17
18
GILAD SHALIT TIMETABLE Reuters News Agency June 25, 2006 - Hamas militants launch raid into Israel from the Gaza Strip, killing two soldiers and capturing Shalit. June 28 - Israeli troops invade the Gaza Strip. Sept 15 - Letter from Shalit reaches his family via Egyptian mediators brokering a prisoner swap deal. Oct 1 - Worst internal Palestinian fighting in a decade raises fears of a civil war in Gaza. Nov 26 - Ceasefire in Gaza announced, ends five months of Israeli air strikes and incursions that fail to free Shalit. June 14, 2007 - Hamas takes over Gaza from Fatah forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas. At least 100 die in fighting. June 24 - Israeli media say Shalit is held in an underground room in a booby-trapped building in southern Gaza. June 25 - Israeli television airs audio tape from Shalit's captors asking for medical treatment and release of Palestinians. Sept 5 - International Committee of the Red Cross calls on Hamas to allow it to see Shalit. Sept 8 - Israeli special forces disguised as Hamas gunmen abduct Hamas commander to be used as "bargaining chip." Dec 26 - Hamas says Shalit won't be freed unless Israel frees 1,400 Palestinian prisoners, many long-term. April 24, 2008 - Hamas leader offers Israel six-month truce in Gaza but says fate of Shalit separate issue. May 12 - Israel says ceasefire deal must include Shalit. May 22 - Ceasefire talks falter over Israel's refusal to reopen Gaza's border crossings. June 9 - Israeli television says Shalit's family receives hand-written letter from their son. June 17 - Israel and Hamas agree to Egyptian-brokered ceasefire in the Gaza Strip. July 4 - Hamas suspends prisoner swap talks in dispute over Israeli blockade and crossborder rocket fire from Gaza. Sept 4 - France hands Syria letter for Shalit, hoping message from his father will reach him. Sept 25 - Hamas rejects list of prisoners Israel is ready to free in exchange for Shalit, 19
saying it wants more. Nov 5 - Hamas fires over 35 rockets into Israel after Israeli forces kill six Palestinian militants in Gaza. Dec 19 - Fragile six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas expires as they fail to agree on terms to extend truce. Dec 27 - Israel launches 22-day military offensive in the Gaza Strip. Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis are killed. Jan 18, 2009 - Israel and Hamas cease fire in Gaza. Feb 7 - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel trying to accelerate talks to secure the release of Shalit. Feb 14 - Gaza truce deal stalls after Israel insists on Shalit release as condition to ceasefire. Feb 23 - Israel replaces Amos Gilad, lead envoy in talks with Hamas, for criticism of premier Ehud Olmert's strategy. March 16 - Olmert sends negotiators Ofer Dekel and Yuval Diskin to Egypt in last-ditch effort to secure Shalit's release. April 21 - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu names ex-Mossad agent Haggai Hadas as new negotiator in Shalit talks. June 23 - Netanyahu says he is pushing for a deal to release Shalit but denies Arab press reports that a swap is imminent. Sept 30 - Israel and Hamas confirm deal to exchange Shalit proof of life for liberation of 20 female Palestinians. Oct 2 - Video is handed over and authenticated. Red Cross convoy carries women to freedom in the West Bank and Gaza.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5913BQ20091002
20
מקורות
SOURCES Talmud Bavli – Gittin – 45a MISHNAH. Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, To prevent abuses. Captives should not be helped to escape, to prevent abuses. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says [that the reason is] to prevent the ill-treatment of fellow captives.
1
RAMBAM
2
Laws TFAF of Gifts to the Poor, Chap. 8 12: We do not redeem captives for more than they are worth because of “concern for the betterment of the world” – so that the enemies should not make special efforts to capture them. And we do not smuggle out the captives because of “concern for the betterment of the world” – so that the enemies do not make their captivity more strenuous and increase the supervision on them.
: נ: מסכת גיטין,חתלמוד בבלי Babylonian Talmud, Gittin:58b
3 Our Rabbis have taught: R. Joshua b. Hananiah once happened to go to the great city of Rome,9 and he was told there that there was in the prison a child with beautiful eyes and face and curly locks.10 He went and stood at the doorway of the prison and said, Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers?11 The child answered, Is it not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned and in whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient unto his law.12 He said: I feel sure that this one will be a teacher in Israel. I swear that I will not budge from here before I ransom him, whatever price may be demanded. It is reported that he did not leave the spot before he had ransomed him at a high figure, nor did many days pass before he became a teacher in Israel. Who was he? — He was R. Ishmael b. Elisha. 21
Tosafot, Masechet Gittin, 58a
]
(How could R. Joshua ben Hananiah have paid for a captive more than he was worth?) When a life is in danger, one may redeem captives for more than they are worth . . . And perhaps also because he was an exceptional scholar (it was permitted to redeem him for more than he was worth).
4
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash PARASHAT CHUKAT by Rav David Silverberg Parashat Chukat includes the war waged against the nation of Arad, whom Benei Yisrael attacked and defeated after Arad had taken prisoners (or, according to Chazal, one prisoner) from Benei Yisrael. Indeed, the mitzva of "pidyon shevuyim," redeeming or freeing prisoners, is considered among the most important mitzvot in the Torah. The Rambam (Hilkhot Matenot Aniyim 8:10) goes so far as to say, "there is no greater mitzva than redeeming captives." He explains that given the harsh conditions generally suffered by captives as well as the threat to their lives, this mitzva incorporates both the mitzva of charity as well as that of saving lives. He therefore rules that when establishing the priority scale of public funds, redeeming captured prisoners takes precedence over providing money for the needy. The Mishna in Gittin 45a rules that the Jewish community may not redeem captives from their captors for an exorbitant sum. (For a discussion of the precise cut-off point, see Pitchei Teshuva, Y.D. 252:5.) The Gemara offers two reasons for this prohibition: either so as not to encourage the enemy to take more prisoners, or to avoid financial havoc among Benei Yisrael. As Rashi points out, a practical difference between these two views would arise when a certain wealthy relative or friend offers to personally provide the entire ransom. The first concern - of boosting incentive for further kidnapping - would still apply, while the issue of decimating the Jewish economy would presumably not come into consideration, as one individual bears the entire burden. Both the Rambam and Shulchan Arukh cite the first reason, and thus even a single individual may not pay an unduly high ransom to redeem a captive. There are, however, several exceptions to this principle. Some Rishonim claim that the captive himself - or spouse - may pay whatever it takes for the ransom. Secondly, the community may pay a high ransom for the release of a Torah scholar. This ruling notwithstanding, there was a famous incident in the thirteenth century of a renowned Torah scholar who refused to allow his followers to pay the ransom for his release, fearing the establishment of a trend of imprisoning Torah leaders for enormous sums of money. Rav Meir of Rothenberg ("Maharam M'Rutenberg"), among the latest of the Tosafists and mentor of Rabbenu Asher, was imprisoned by Emperor Rudolf in Germany in 1286. Upon hearing of the immense ransom demanded by the emperor, the Maharam outright refused to be released. Even after his death in prison, the authorities refused to give his remains to the 22
community for proper burial until a certain philanthropist donated practically his entire fortune for the retrieval of the Maharam's remains. Another issue surrounds a situation where the prisoner's life is clearly at stake, such as when the captors issue an ultimatum. The Pitchei Teshuva (Y.D. 252:4) cites a dispute among the authorities whether or not in such an instance the community could/pay even an exorbitant ransom for the prisoner's release. The Sedei Chemed (Alef, 129) claims that clearly when the captive's life is in danger no amount is too high for his release. http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bemidbar/39-3chukat.htm
From the Rabbi's Desk: KOL NIDREI DRASH DEDICATED TO GILAD SHALIT Rabbi Levi Weiman-Kelman Excerpted froin:
5769 (2008)
Kehilat Kol haNeshama, Jerusalem The conflict hit the headlines in 1985 when three soldiers were abducted in Sultan Yakub. The government was about to release one thousand security prisoners. Rabbi Shlomo Goren forbade the release based on the Mishna from Gittin - One must not redeem captives for more than they are worth. Rabbi Goren determined that the wellbeing of a few Jews (the captives) cannot come at the expense of the greater Jewish community. Rabbi Goren quotes Rabbi Yoseph Caro who decreed that even if there is the possibility of danger to others you should not safe a Jew in actual danger. TO sharpen the point – if we are motivated by pikuach nefesh – preserving human life – what do we do when there is a conflict between the life of the captive and the lives of the community? Chaim David HaLevi was the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv in 1985. He disagreed with Rabbi Goren. (I am indebted to my teacher and friend Rabbi David Ellenson who has written extensively about Rabbi HaLevi.) Rabbi Chaim David HaLevi admits that the sources that Rabbi Goren quotes are all accurate. However he contends that they all refer to situation when kidnappers kidnap for financial gain. (In the past jews were kidnapped mostly by pirates!) Today Arabs kidnap Jewish soldiers because of a national struggle. They will continue to do so for as long as the conflict continues without regard to the ransom. He raises another point – the influence on the combat soldier who is not sure that the country will do its utmost to bring him home if he is captured. He worried it would lead to a decline in motivation for the soldier in combat. Rabbi HaLevi notes that a new reality – a soverign Jewish state with an army- demands an innovative halachic response. He admits that today problems arise that have no halachic precedent and no clear solutions. Kehilat Kol haNeshama is a progressive congregation in Baka http://www.kolhaneshama.org.il/english/gensec.asp?secid=11
23
ISRIA WEBSITE Israel - Summary of editorials from the Hebrew press, 23 Nov 2009 Two newspapers discuss speculation regarding the release of abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit:
Yediot Aharonot discusses the latest reports regarding captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. The paper asserts that "This is not a deal for the release of prisoners with blood on their hands in exchange for the release of Gilad Shalit from captivity," and adds that "This is the release of prisoners in blood up to their ears." The author believes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government are facing a dilemma: "Is the State of Israel prepared to release murderers, some of whom are military leaders who constitute nationalist symbols and models for imitation among the most extremist Palestinian factions; people whose release will give hope to every potential murderer and send a clear message: It is possible to murder Jews because in the end, somebody will release you." The author warns that the deal in which Gilad Shalit is released will be the model for any future similar negotiations, the guidelines of this or that Defense Ministry committee notwithstanding. The paper also cautions that the putative deal "is a death sentence for the Abu Mazen government, which will – in the worst case – lead to anarchy in the territories and – in the best case – to the flourishing of extremist factions within Fatah." The Jerusalem Post debates the wisdom of setting free some of the most dangerous terrorists Israel has ever encountered in return for the release of Gilad Shalit, and stresses that "As much as we Israelis ache to see Gilad Schalit home with his family, the emotional blackmail of campaigners who say the country should do 'anything' to achieve his release could unleash on our home front the very same sociopathic killers Israel's security forces worked so hard to capture in the first place." Ma'ariv accuses the Palestinian Authority of waging "diplomatic, judicial and psychological war" against Israel. In this context, the author cites, inter alia, "The obduracy on the issue of settlements, the global campaign to boycott Israeli goods, [and] the effort to turn the issue of Palestinian prisoners into a global issue." The paper believes that the Palestinians have been emboldened to take such a line due both to the Netanyahu Government's "lack of will and ability to compromise on fundamental issues including Jerusalem and refugees, in contrast to Olmert's extraordinary concessions," and to "the internal recognition that the chance of getting the Gaza Strip back is slim." The author says that the Palestinian Authority now prefers to "gnaw away at Israel's international position and turn it into a global pariah," and concludes that "The chance for a genuine resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians on a permanent settlement is close to nil in the current situation." Yisrael Hayom discusses the notions of civil disobedience and the refusal to follow orders and avers that "Refusal that stems from parochial, factional or ethnic reasons, and not from the voice of pure conscience that is common to all humanity, is unjustified vis-à-vis moral integrity, which is also common to all humanity. Such refusal is liable to serve any injustice that a forceful group carries out against a weaker group. Whoever gets excited over such refusal shows that he is unable to distinguish between the voice of human conscience and 24
the voice of tribal nonsense." Haaretz discusses the search for the new attorney general, and justifies Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to choose the next AG from the four candidates with the most support in the selection committee. The editor informs the paper's readers that "Most of the attorney general's work is in constitutional, administrative and economic law, so in selecting a successor to Mazuz, the cabinet must choose the candidate who has proved
the most knowledgeable in these fields." http://www.isria.com/pages/23_November_2009_44.php
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3809235,00.html
25
Rabbis : The Shalit deal being considered is madness in terms of halacha . More than 50 haredi rabbis convened in Jerusalem to hear a professional review on the trade being considered to ransom Shalit and decided to establish a working group to oppose the move. Rabbi Shmuel Elijah : " When their lives of so many Jews stand in the balance, it is clear that it is forbidden to give in. One will have to find other ways to secure his release.” The deal that is being considered to obtain the release of the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit in return for hundreds Palestinian terrorists is in violation of halacha and must not be carried out. So determined dozens of rabbis on the Right, among several from the leaders of the Religious Zionist movement, who met last night in Jerusalem. They discussed the issue, heard a professional review from senior officers in the Army Reserve, and, in the end, decided to establish a group to oppose the move. Among those participating were Rabbis Dov Lior, Zalman Melamed, Yehoshua Shapira, Yaakov Joseph, Elyakim Lebanon and Shmuel Elijah; in all more than 50 rabbis. Rabbi Elijah, who serves in the city of Zfat, said to Ynet : " This deal is in violation of halacha, and it is truly madness." He protested that many religious Jews who see themselves as committed to halacha, do not speak up about this subject, thinking of it as too complex, even when “Judaism is clearly opposed to it.” Rabbi Elijah noted : " It is written that we must go to war even regarding (a relatively minor matter), if we fear that giving in on this will lead to more severe issues. Here, when the lives of so many Jews may be endangered, it is clearly forbidden to give in. The solution is to put pressure on the other side to release Gilad Shalit, perhaps to undertake a military operation, even if that might endanger Palestinian civilians. When the question comes as to their lives – the lives of our enemies – we become suddenly very concerned and declare that it is not appropriate. Yet, we seem ready to pay any price where out own side is concerned.” The Conference of Rabbis was planned, even before the publications of the recent progress of the negotiation in the matter of Shalit. It was held as a meeting as a meeting of Nationalist Rabbis that convene from time to time to the discussions matters of current interest.
Rabbi Amar: Progress on Shalit brings hope for relations with Palestinians
\
Published:
11.23.09, 23:23 / Israel News
Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Shlomo Amar commended progress in negotiations for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Speaking at a forum for the deputies of regional council heads in Jerusalem, Amar said that aside from saving the soldier, the negotiations may have the effect of bringing Israelis and Palestinians closer together. (Kobi Nahshoni) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3809670,00.html
26
Religious public: Include rabbis in Shalit deal debates Should religion be a factor in discussing political issues such as Shalit deal, Goldstone report? Should IDF abide by halachic rules during military operations? New survey inspects public's views The recently obtained videotape of captive IDF soldier Gilad Shalit sparked once again the public debate regarding the issue of releasing proven terrorists in exchange for his safe return. Who shall determine whether they should be released and how many? To what extent should Jewish leaders be involved in decision making? A joint survey by Ynet and the Yesodot Center for Torah and Democracy revealed that the religious public supports the inclusion of rabbis in discussions on the legitimate price to be paid for captives. The survey was conducted by the Panels Research Institute and included 512 participants. The first question participants were asked was, "The torah is filled with war commandments. Do you think the Israel Defense Forces should act according to the halacha during military operations?." Approximately 39% claimed that it is not appropriate in 21st Century, 38% said that the army should be aware of halachic stance on relevant issues but should act according to international laws and the Geneva Conventions, whereas 29% believe that the IDF, as a Jewish army, should adhere to its people's guidelines alone. In terms of the various religious sectors within the Israeli society, the survey revealed that the majority within the religious and ultra-Orthodox sectors supports instating IDF as a "halachic" army (76% and 82% respectively). Seculars, on the other hand reject any correlation between the military and the halacha (51%), while common belief among the conservative Jews is that the army should be aware of halachic rules but not be obligated to adhere to them (41%). According to the UN committee's Goldstone report the IDF committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead. What is the Jewish stance on the matter? The survey reflects confusion over the issue. Some 46% believe that "War being war, one should act with full force against the enemy," whereas an additional 46% were of the opinion that moral standards must be upheld in time of war as well. The remaining 8% claimed that the Jewish religion is irrelevant to the discussion since it offers no ruling on the matter. The survey's results also suggested that the ultra-Orthodox and conservative sectors interpret the Jewish religion's stance as advocating the use of full force against the enemy (61% and 62% respectively). Seculars were generally of the opinion that moral standards must be upheld during war (49%), leaving the religious sector divided on the issue (49% for two options). 27
Should rabbis decide on politics? Recent footage of captive soldier Gilad Shalit and the negotiations for his release raised the controversial issue of the price Israel may have to pay to retrieve him. Should rabbis be included in military and political discussions determining whether to pardon hundreds of terrorists in his exchange? Some 61% oppose the idea claiming that rabbis are not better qualified than cabinet ministers and army seniors, 26% would consider including the IDF chief rabbi, whereas 13% are in favor of acknowledging rabbinical establishment's moral and halachic point of view, since it may validate such a decision within the public. Examining division of opinions within religious sectors, the survey revealed that seculars reject out of hand the inclusion of rabbis in such decisions (78%), the conservatives are divided to those who oppose such an option (43%) and those in support of including the IDF chief rabbi as a decision maker (41%), and the religious sector is in favor of incorporating the IDF chief rabbi (47%) or other rabbis (47%) in the decision-making process. Common view among the ultra-Orthodox community is that that rabbinical establishment's stance should be taken into account (83%). Yesodot Center General-Director Shoshi Becker commented on the survey's results: "The survey clearly indicates that the public views the IDF as the Jewish State's army which should be aware of the halacha, but that rabbis should not be afforded a main role in decision making." Becker believes that this type of system would be obligating for both sides as the rabbinical establishment would be required to acquire general knowledge on each topic's various aspects. "In order for the rabbinical establishment to be a part of decision making it has to voice its views on the moral issues. We rarely heard of flaming controversies within the rabbinical establishment regarding moral-political issues and perhaps should those have been voiced, the public would have been made aware of the Jewish moral point of view on the current dilemma Israel, as a Jewish and democratic State, is facing," she said.
28
29
May a Doctor Return to his House on Shabbat - Basic Approaches Rav Mordechai Helprin (Translation of Excerpts)
• Rav Yaakov Kanievsky says in the name of the Chazon Ish that one should not forbid a doctor who has travelled on Shabbat to treat the sick from returning home by car, in order not to discourage him from travelling to the sick on Shabbat in the future.
• The Chatam Sofer even noted that the allowance for a doctor to return home after the matter of life and death has been dealt with applies even to violating Torah laws on Shabbat, in order not to discourage him from travelling to the sick on Shabbat in the future.
• Rav Shneur Zalman Auerbach, however, disagrees with this. He compares the concept of “, in order not to discourage him from travelling to the sick on Shabbat in the future” with the concept of “we allow the action at the end in order to be sure the action in the beginning takes place” (a concept discussed in the Talmud), which only applies to the violation of Rabbinic laws. (And therefore Rav Auerbach would not permit a doctor to violate a Torah law in order to return home on Shabbat.)
• But Rav Moshe Feinstein did permit a doctor to be taken home by a Jew, even in violation of Torah law, in order not to discourage him from travelling to the sick on Shabbat in the future. The article goes on to quote several other Rabbis on this topic. His conclusion appears to be that the many, and even most, Rabbinic authorities allow the violation even of Torah law for a doctor to return home on Shabbat in order not to discourage him from travelling to the sick on Shabbat in the future.
30
