המשנה בגיטין מעלה שני מקרים בהם לא פודים שבויים. בדף ההבא נעיין במקרה הראשון.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יָתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶן, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם... גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הַאי ״מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם״ – מִשּׁוּם דּוּחְקָא דְצִבּוּרָא הוּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא לִגְרְבוּ וְלַיְיתוֹ טְפֵי? תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּלֵוִי בַּר דַּרְגָּא פַּרְקַהּ לִבְרַתֵּיהּ בִּתְלֵיסַר אַלְפֵי דִּינְרֵי זָהָב. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּבִרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים עֲבַד? דִּילְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹן חֲכָמִים עֲבַד.
The Gemara says: And as for Rav Anan, who could not determine in which case the money of the sale is returned, the baraita was not known to him, so he was not able to use it in order to resolve his dilemma. And if Rav Anan would attempt to resolve his dilemma from the statement of Shmuel, who said that the sale does not take effect at all, this should mean that the money used in the sale is returned, and it is possible to say: From where can you assume that it is not sold, and therefore the money is returned? Perhaps it is not sold and the money is considered to be a gift, just as it is according to the opinion of Shmuel in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated with regard to one who betroths his sister, Rav said: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect; and Shmuel said: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. Therefore, Rav Anan remained uncertain as to when Shmuel required the money to be returned. With regard to the halakha that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael it is the purchaser who loses his money, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to cause you to say that we apply the penalty to the purchaser, in that he is required to emancipate the slave and loses his money; we should apply the penalty to the seller, and he should be required to return the money. Rav Yosef answered Abaye with a parable and said to him: It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals. In other words, a mouse cannot steal anything unless he has a hole for hiding the stolen items. Here too, the slave would not have been sold without the help of the purchaser. The Gemara questions this logic: But if not for the mouse, from where would the hole have the stolen item; since they both contribute to the prohibited act, each of them is deserving of being penalized. Rav Yosef responded to him: It stands to reason that anywhere that the forbidden item, i.e., the slave, is, in this case, with the purchaser, there we should penalize. § The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who fled from his master from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. His master followed him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to the master: We will write a promissory note for his value for you, and you should write a bill of manumission for him. And if you do not do this, I will remove him from you entirely, since he does not have to return to outside of Eretz Yisrael, based on the statement of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the residents of the Land of Canaan: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods; for they will be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:33). One might have thought that the verse is also speaking of a gentile who accepted upon himself not to engage in idol worship, and is teaching that such a gentile may not dwell in Eretz Yisrael as well; therefore the verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave who escaped to you from his master” (Deuteronomy 23:16). The baraita understands that the verse is speaking in metaphoric terms about a gentile who has come to Eretz Yisrael, escaping his idolatrous past. The baraita continues: What is this gentile’s remedy? “He shall dwell with you in your midst” (Deuteronomy 23:17). This teaches that as long as he accepts upon himself not to engage in idol worship, he may remain in Eretz Yisrael. And the explanation of the verse in the baraita is difficult for Rabbi Yoshiya: This expression employed in the verse: “From his master,” is imprecise if it is speaking about a gentile who abandons idol worship, as it should have stated: From his father, as a father is a more apt metaphor for the religion in which one was raised. Rather, Rabbi Yoshiya explains differently and says: The verse is speaking of one who sells his slave to a Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the continuation of the verse: “He shall dwell with you,” means that he does not go to his new master outside of Eretz Yisrael, but is emancipated and remains in Eretz Yisrael. And the explanation of Rabbi Yoshiya is difficult for Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya: If it is referring to a slave who is sold to one outside of Eretz Yisrael, then this expression: “Who escaped to you,” is not accurate, as he is leaving from Eretz Yisrael, not escaping to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Yoshiya’s explanation, it should have stated: Who escaped from you. Rather, Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, said: The verse is speaking of a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, which indicates that in such a case he may dwell there and is not returned to his master. Based on this statement of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Ami told the master that the slave will in any case be emancipated. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave” (Deuteronomy 23:16); Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver him to this master, because he is not his slave and he may not treat him as such. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For example, when he wrote to the slave like this: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. The new master does not take possession of the slave, as he is emancipated immediately upon being purchased. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda’s slave escaped to Bei Kutai, a place where Samaritans lived. He sent a request to the residents of that place: Return him to me. They sent a response to him: The verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave,” so we will not return this slave to you. He sent a response to them: The verse also states with regard to lost items: “And you shall restore it to him…and so you shall do for his donkey and so you shall do for his garment and so you shall do for anything your brother has lost” (Deuteronomy 22:2–3). They sent a response to him again: But isn’t it written: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave”? Rav Ḥisda sent a response to them: That verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and my slave escaped from one location outside of Eretz Yisrael to another location outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And what is different about this case that led him to send a response to them specifically in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and not in accordance with any other interpretation of the verse? The Gemara answers: Because that is how the Samaritans would understand the verse. Samaritans did not generally accept the explanations of the Sages, and this explanation accords with the straightforward reading of the verse, while the other explanations do not. The Gemara relates that Abaye lost a donkey among the Samaritans in Bei Kutai. He sent a request to them: Send it to me. They sent a response to him: Send a distinguishing mark and we will return it to you. He sent the following distinguishing mark to them: That its belly is white. They sent a response to him: If not for the fact that you are Naḥmani, meaning that we know that you are a trustworthy man, we would not send it to you. Is that to say that bellies of all donkeys aren’t white? Therefore, it is not a true distinguishing mark. MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world; and one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors for the betterment of the world, so that kidnappers will not be more restrictive with their captives to prevent them from escaping. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives, so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum. Abaye said: And who told us that he acted in accordance with the wishes of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the wishes of the Sages, and this anecdote cannot serve as a proof. The mishna taught: And one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors, for the betterment of the world. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when there is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive’s escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive to begin with, one may help him to escape. If it was instituted so that kidnappers in general will not act restrictively with their captives, it would be prohibited in this case as well. § The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman’s daughters would stir a boiling pot with their bare hands, and people thought that the heat did not harm them due to their righteousness. Rav Ilish had a difficulty with a verse, as it is written: “A man one of a thousand I have found, and a woman among all those have I not found” (Ecclesiastes 7:28). Aren’t there Rav Naḥman’s daughters, who were exceptionally righteous? These words caused them to be taken captive, due to the evil eye, and Rav Ilish was also taken captive with them. One day a certain man was sitting with him in captivity who knew the language of birds. A raven came and called to Rav Ilish. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is the raven saying? He said to him that it is saying: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Rav Ilish said: It is a lying raven, and I do not rely on it. In the meantime, a dove came and was calling out. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is it saying? He said to him that the dove said: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Ilish said: The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove; I conclude from the dove’s words that a miracle will happen for me, and I can attempt to escape. Rav Ilish said: Before I leave, I will go and I will see Rav Naḥman’s daughters. If they remained steadfast in their faith and are acting appropriately, then I will take them with me and I will return them to their home. He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde’a to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors. Upon hearing this Rav Ilish arose and escaped. He and that man who knew the language of the birds came to a river crossing. A miracle happened for him and he crossed the river on a ferry, and the captors found that man and killed him. When Rav Naḥman’s daughters were returned and they came back from their captivity, Rav Ilish said: They would stir the pot with witchcraft, and that is why they were not burned by the boiling pot, but it was not due to their righteousness. MISHNA: And Torah scrolls, phylacteries, or mezuzot are not purchased from the gentiles when they acquire these objects, if they request more than their actual monetary value,
משנה אין פודין את השבויין יתר על כדי דמיהן הרגילים, מפני תיקון העולם. ואין מבריחין את השבויין מן השבאים, מפני תיקון העולם. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: מפני תקנת השבויין. גמרא איבעיא להו [נשאלה להם ללומדים]: האי [זה] הביטוי "מפני תיקון העולם", האם כוונתו משום דוחקא דצבורא [דוחק הציבור] הוא, שאם עולים המחירים ביותר הרי זה גורם דוחק לציבור שצריכים לפדות אותם, או דילמא [שמא] משום שלא לגרבו ולייתו טפי [יחטפו ויביאו שבויים יותר], כדי שלא יהיה כדאי לשובים לשבות דווקא שבויים יהודים? ומציעים: תא שמע [בוא ושמע] תשובה לשאלה זו ממה שלוי בר דרגא פרקא לברתיה [פדה את בתו] שנשבתה בתליסר [בשלושה עשר] אלפי דינרי זהב, משמע שפודים את השבויים יותר מדמיהם אם אדם פרטי רוצה בכך. ומכאן עולה שסיבת התקנה היא דוחק הציבור ואינה ענין לאדם פרטי. שאם מן הסיבה השניה — גם לאדם פרטי יהיה אסור לפדות ביותר מדמי השבוי. אמר אביי: ומאן לימא לן [ומי יאמר לנו] שברצון חכמים עבד [עשה] דבר זה? דילמא [שמא] שלא ברצון חכמים עבד [עשה], ואם כן, אין מכאן הוכחה.
הגמרא מעלה שני טעמים לכך שלא פודים שבויים יותר מכדי דמיהם (כלומר במחיר גבוה מהשווי שלהם).
מה ההבדל בין הטעמים?
עיינו בסיפור הבא וחשבו האם יש מקרים בהם כן ראוי לפדות שבויים יותר מכדי דמיהן?
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה שֶׁהָלַךְ לִכְרַךְ גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּרוֹמִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תִּינוֹק אֶחָד יֵשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. הָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, אָמַר: ״מִי נָתַן לִמְשִׁיסָּה יַעֲקֹב וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְבוֹזְזִים״? עָנָה אוֹתוֹ תִּינוֹק וְאָמַר: ״הֲלֹא ה׳ זוּ חָטָאנוּ לוֹ וְלֹא אָבוּ בִדְרָכָיו הָלוֹךְ וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּתוֹרָתוֹ״. אָמַר: מוּבְטְחַנִי בּוֹ שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָעֲבוֹדָה! שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁאֶפְדֶּנּוּ בְּכׇל מָמוֹן שֶׁפּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ בְּמָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִין עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע.
of phylactery boxes were found on the heads of those killed in Beitar. Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, says: There were found three large baskets each holding forty se’a of phylactery boxes. And it was taught in a baraita: There were forty large baskets each holding three se’a. The Gemara notes: And these Sages do not disagree: This Sage is referring to phylacteries of the head, whereas this Sage is referring to phylacteries of the arm, for owing to the different manners in which they are fashioned, they are also different in size. Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9). § The verse states: “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold” (Lamentations 4:2). What is the meaning of the expression “comparable to fine gold”? If we say that it means they were covered in fine gold [piza], this is difficult; but didn’t the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Two istira weights of fine gold came down into the world, one in Rome and one in all the rest of the world. If so, it is certainly impossible to cover the inhabitants of Jerusalem with fine gold, as there is not enough of it in the entire world to do so. Rather, this means that they would be so attractive that they would disgrace fine gold because of their beauty. The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome. It is related that it once happened that they did this to two children, and one of them said to the other: Where is this affliction written in the Torah? The other said to him: As it is written: “Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 28:61). The first one said: How far am I in my studies from this, i.e., how much more would I have had to learn in order to reach this verse? The other said: Had you gone on one and a half columns [pusta], you would have reached this. The first child said to the other: Had I reached this verse, I would not have needed you, as I would have known on my own that the verse was speaking about this. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affects my soul because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Beitar, and in each and every one of them there were four hundred schoolteachers, and each and every one of these teachers had four hundred schoolchildren. And when the enemy entered there, these schoolchildren stabbed them with their pens [beḥotreihen]. And when the enemy prevailed and caught them, they wrapped the children in their scrolls and lit them on fire. The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?” Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world. The two masters said: Come, let us marry these two slaves to one another and divide the children born to them between us, as they will certainly be very beautiful. They secluded them in a room. This one, the son, sat in one corner, and that one, the daughter, sat in the other corner. He said: I am a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I marry a female slave? And she said: I am the daughter of a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I be married to a male slave? And they wept all through the night. When dawn arrived they recognized each other and saw that they were brother and sister. They fell on each other and burst into tears until their souls departed due to their great distress. And with regard to them and others like them, Jeremiah lamented: “For these things I weep; my eye, my eye runs down with water” (Lamentations 1:16). Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze [tzofin] at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter [bat] of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum [lifnai velefnim] of the Temple. And it happened that she was taken captive and her captor abused and raped her all night. The next day he dressed her in seven garments and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was especially ugly came and said to the man who was selling her: Show me her beauty. He said to him: Good-for-nothing, if you wish to buy her then buy her, for there is no beauty like hers in all of the world. The potential buyer said to the seller: Even so, I wish to see for myself. He removed the six outermost garments, and she herself tore the seventh, and rolled in ashes. She said before God: Master of the Universe, even if You have shown no pity to us, and have allowed us to be disgraced in this way, why have You not shown pity to the sanctity of Your mighty name by which we are called? And with regard to her and others like her, Jeremiah lamented: “O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make you mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us” (Jeremiah 6:26). It is not stated: Upon you, but rather “upon us,” for the spoiler shall come, as it were, both over Me and over you. God Himself shares this pain and His name is also disgraced. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:2)? There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes on his master’s wife, and he was a carpenter’s apprentice [shulya]. One time his master needed to borrow some money, and his apprentice said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. He sent his wife to him, and the apprentice stayed with her for three days. He then went back to his master before she did, and the master said to him: Where is my wife whom I sent to you? The apprentice said to him: I sent her back immediately, but I heard that the youth abused and raped her on the way. The master said to his apprentice: What shall I do? The apprentice said to him: If you listen to my advice, divorce her. He said to him: But her marriage contract is large and I do not have the money to pay it. The apprentice said to him: I will lend you the money, and you will give her payment of her marriage contract. The master arose and divorced her, and the apprentice went and married her. When the time came that the debt was due, and he did not have the means with which to repay it, the apprentice said to his master: Come and work off your debt with me. And they, the apprentice and his wife, would sit and eat and drink, while he, the woman’s first husband, would stand over them and serve them their drinks. And tears would drop from his eyes and fall into their cups, and at that time the Jewish people’s sentence was sealed, for remaining silent in the face of this injustice. And some say that the Jewish people were punished for two wicks in one lamp, a euphemism for the sin of adultery committed by this couple while the master was still married to the woman. § The Gemara returns to the mishna, which states: If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, and afterward returned and purchased the same field from the prior landowner, so that he will be considered the legal owner of the field, his purchase is void. Rav says: They taught that the purchase is void only in a case where the prior owner says to the buyer when he came to acquire the field from him: Go, take possession of the field and thereby acquire it, as in such a case the prior owner can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. But if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer acquires the field. And Shmuel says: Even if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire it unless the prior owner writes him a guarantee that if the field is repossessed by a creditor of the prior owner, the prior owner, who sold him the field, will compensate him for his loss, as by writing this guarantee he demonstrates that this is a true sale.
מהגמרא משתמע שאם מדובר באדם גדול או בתלמיד חכם מותר לפדותו בכסף רב. כך כתבו ראשונים רבים לדוגמא:
ומסתברא תלמיד חכם פודין אותו בכל ממון שבעולם וליכא משום דוחקא לא משום איגרויי שאם אבדו ישראל ממון או מתו משונאיהם הרבה יש לנו כיוצא בהם ות"ח אין לנו כיוצא בו... ור' יהושע משום שהכיר בו בוודאי שהוא תלמיד ותיק פדאו בממון הרבה.
אך ראשונים אחרים הבינו מכאן שיש נסיבות בהם מותר לפדות יותר מכדי דמיהם:
כל ממון שפוסקין עליו - כי איכא סכנת נפשות פודין שבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן כדאמרינן בפרק השולח (לעיל גיטין דף מד.) גבי מוכר עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים כ"ש הכא דאיכא קטלא אי נמי משום דמופלג בחכמה היה:
[Tosfot quotes the Gemara:] "for whatever [amount of] money that they demand." [He was legally allowed to do this because where] there is a threat to life, we redeem the captives for more than their value. [This is like what] we say in Chapter 'Hasholeach' (above, page 47a) about one who sells themselves and their children to idol-worshippers, [and this is true] a fortiori here where there is a murderer. Alternatively, [he was allowed to redeem the baby for more than its worth] because [it possessed] great wisdom.
כלומר לפי התוספות בכל מקום שיש סכנת נפשות לשבוי מותר לפדות אותו אפילו יותר מכדי דמיו.
כיוון זה מתאים עם גישתו של המהרי"ק שראינו בדף 4, שנפסק להלכה גם בשולחן ערוך:
(ג) כל רגע שמאחר לפדות השבויים היכא דאפשר להקדים הוי כאילו שופך דמים:
(3) Every moment that one delays unnecessarily the ransoming of a captive, it is as if he were to shed blood.
וכך פסקו אחרונים רבים שבמקום שיש סכנת נפשות חובה לפדות את השבויים אפילו ביותר מכדי דמיהם.
כך למשל במקורות הבאים:
ערך לחם למהריק"ש יורה דעה סימן רנב סעיף ד
וכן כשיש סכנת נפשות, תוספות גיטין נ"ח א' [ד"ה כל]:
יפה ללב, רבי יצחק פאלאג'י, יו"ד ח"ג סי' רנב סעי' ו או' יא
ואם בקשו להרגו פודין אותו מיד אפילו וכו'... ואפילו ביותר מכדי דמיהן.
וכך העיד הרדב"ז שכן נוהגים לעשות:
שו"ת רדב"ז חלק א סימן מ
כבר נהגו כל ישראל לפדות את השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהן הנמכרי' בשוק שהרי זקן או קטן אין שוה בשוק יותר מעשר' דינרין ופודין אותו בק' או יותר... אם יש בהם מי שמוכן לזה פודין אותו בכל ממון או שמא יש בהם קטנים יעבירום על הדת נמצא שאין אנו פודין אלא הדת ובדרך כלל כופין אותם לחלל שבתות ומועדות ומיסרין אותם ביסורים קשים ממות: ואע"פי שיש לבעל הדין לומר על כל התנאים הללו אומר התנא אין פודין את השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהן מ"מ יש לדחות דדילמא לאו איירי התנא בשבויים דאית בהו כל הני דאמרן וכיון שהדבר ספק הנח להם לישראל ויחזיקו במדה כיון שהם שמחים וששים בה יש להם בזה שכר גדול. ותו שאין אנו כופין אותם אלא הם בעצמם מתנדבין אין כאן בית מיחוש ומצוה רבה איכא ויפה נהגו להחזיק במדת אברהם אע"ה דכתיב נדיבי עמים עם אלהי אברהם: