Are the following obligated, forbidden or permissible?
May one endanger other people’s lives by exchanging terrorists for hostages?
May one endanger the hostages’ lives by NOT exchanging terrorists for the hostages?
Are the rules of war and endangerment different than other rules of endangering life?
(12) They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother, and his possessions, and departed; for he had settled in Sodom. (13) A fugitive brought the news to Abram the Hebrew, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies. (14) When Abram heard that his kinsman’s [household] had been taken captive, he mustered his retainers, born into his household, numbering three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan. (15) At night, he and his servants deployed against them and defeated them; and he pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus. (16) He brought back all the possessions; he also brought back his kinsman Lot and his possessions, and the women and the rest of the people.
(1) When the Canaanite, king of Arad, who dwelt in the Negeb, learned that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he engaged Israel in battle and took some of them captive. (2) Then Israel made a vow to ה' and said, “If You deliver this people into our hand, we will proscribe their towns.” (3) ה' heeded Israel’s plea and delivered up the Canaanites; and they and their cities were proscribed. So that place was named Hormah.
(א) וַיְהִ֞י בְּבֹ֨א דָוִ֧ד וַאֲנָשָׁ֛יו צִֽקְלַ֖ג בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֑י וַעֲמָלֵקִ֣י פָֽשְׁט֗וּ אֶל־נֶ֙גֶב֙ וְאֶל־צִ֣קְלַ֔ג וַיַּכּוּ֙ אֶת־צִ֣קְלַ֔ג וַיִּשְׂרְפ֥וּ אֹתָ֖הּ בָּאֵֽשׁ׃ (ב) וַיִּשְׁבּ֨וּ אֶת־הַנָּשִׁ֤ים אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ֙ מִקָּטֹ֣ן וְעַד־גָּד֔וֹל לֹ֥א הֵמִ֖יתוּ אִ֑ישׁ וַיִּֽנְהֲג֔וּ וַיֵּלְכ֖וּ לְדַרְכָּֽם׃ (ג) וַיָּבֹ֨א דָוִ֤ד וַֽאֲנָשָׁיו֙ אֶל־הָעִ֔יר וְהִנֵּ֥ה שְׂרוּפָ֖ה בָּאֵ֑שׁ וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֛ם וּבְנֵיהֶ֥ם וּבְנֹתֵיהֶ֖ם נִשְׁבּֽוּ׃ (ד) וַיִּשָּׂ֨א דָוִ֜ד וְהָעָ֧ם אֲשֶׁר־אִתּ֛וֹ אֶת־קוֹלָ֖ם וַיִּבְכּ֑וּ עַ֣ד אֲשֶׁ֧ר אֵין־בָּהֶ֛ם כֹּ֖חַ לִבְכּֽוֹת׃ (ה) וּשְׁתֵּ֥י נְשֵׁי־דָוִ֖ד נִשְׁבּ֑וּ אֲחִינֹ֙עַם֙ הַיִּזְרְעֵלִ֔ית וַֽאֲבִיגַ֕יִל אֵ֖שֶׁת נָבָ֥ל הַֽכַּרְמְלִֽי׃ (ו) וַתֵּ֨צֶר לְדָוִ֜ד מְאֹ֗ד כִּֽי־אָמְר֤וּ הָעָם֙ לְסׇקְל֔וֹ כִּי־מָ֙רָה֙ נֶ֣פֶשׁ כׇּל־הָעָ֔ם אִ֖ישׁ עַל־בָּנָ֣ו וְעַל־בְּנֹתָ֑יו וַיִּתְחַזֵּ֣ק דָּוִ֔ד בַּיהֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹהָֽיו׃ {ס} (ז) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר דָּוִ֗ד אֶל־אֶבְיָתָ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ בֶּן־אֲחִימֶ֔לֶךְ הַגִּֽישָׁה־נָּ֥א לִ֖י הָאֵפ֑וֹד וַיַּגֵּ֧שׁ אֶבְיָתָ֛ר אֶת־הָאֵפ֖וֹד אֶל־דָּוִֽד׃ (ח) וַיִּשְׁאַ֨ל דָּוִ֤ד בַּֽיהֹוָה֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אֶרְדֹּ֛ף אַחֲרֵ֥י הַגְּדוּד־הַזֶּ֖ה הַאַשִּׂגֶ֑נּוּ וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ רְדֹ֔ף כִּֽי־הַשֵּׂ֥ג תַּשִּׂ֖יג וְהַצֵּ֥ל תַּצִּֽיל׃ (ט) וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ דָּוִ֗ד ה֚וּא וְשֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת אִישׁ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתּ֔וֹ וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ עַד־נַ֣חַל הַבְּשׂ֑וֹר וְהַנּוֹתָרִ֖ים עָמָֽדוּ׃
(1) By the time David and his men arrived in Ziklag, on the third day, the Amalekites had made a raid into the Negeb and against Ziklag; they had stormed Ziklag and burned it down. (2) They had taken the women in it captive, low-born and high-born alike; they did not kill any, but carried them off and went their way. (3) When David and his men came to the town and found it burned down, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive, (4) David and the troops with him broke into tears, until they had no strength left for weeping. (5) David’s two wives had been taken captive, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail wife of Nabal from Carmel. (6) David was in great danger, for the troops threatened to stone him; for all the troops were embittered on account of their sons and daughters.
But David sought strength in the LORD his God. (7) David said to the priest Abiathar son of Ahimelech, “Bring the ephod up to me.” When Abiathar brought up the ephodaSee note at 2.28. to David, (8) David inquired of the LORD, “Shall I pursue those raiders? Will I overtake them?” And He answered him, “Pursue, for you shall overtake and you shall rescue.” (9) So David and the six hundred men with him set out, and they came to the Wadi Besor, where a halt was made by those who were to be left behind.
Redemption of Captives
7) רמב”ם הלכות מתנות עניים פרק ח
הלכה י
פדיון שבויים קודם לפרנסת עניים ולכסותן, ואין לך מצוה גדולה כפדיון שבויים שהשבוי הרי הוא בכלל הרעבים והצמאים והערומים ועומד בסכנת נפשות, המעלים עיניו מפדיון שבויים, עובר על לא תאמץ את לבבך (דברים טו, ז). ועל לא תקפוץ את ידך (דברים טו, ז). ועל לא תעמוד על דם רעך (ויקרא יט, טז). ועל לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך (ויקרא כה, נג). ובטל מצות פתוח תפתח את ידך לו (דברים טו, ח). ומצות וחי אחיך עמך (ויקרא כה, לו). ואהבת לרעך כמוך (ויקרא יט, יח). והצל לקוחים למות (משלי כד, יא). והרבה דברים כאלו. ואין לך מצוה רבה כפדיון שבויים.
Rambam, The Laws of Gifts to The Poor, 8:10
The redemption of captives takes precedence over supporting and clothing the poor. There is no greater mitzvah than redeeming captives, for the captive is among the hungry, the thirsty, the naked and those whose lives are in danger.
A person who ignores the redemption of captives, transgresses “you shall not harden your heart” (Deut. 15:7), “you shall not shut your hand from your needy brother” (Deut. 15:7), “you shall not stand idly by the blood of your brother” (Lev. 19:16), “he shall not rule with vigor over him in your sight” (Lev. 25:53). He also cancels out the mitzvah, “you shall surely open your hand unto him” (Deut 15:8) and the mitzvah “that your brother may live with you” (Lev. 25:36), “and you shall love your neighbor as yourself”, (Lev 19:18), “save them that have been taken to die” (Proverbs 24:11), and many similar ones. There is no greater commandment than redeeming captives.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי: מְנַָא הָא מִילְּתָא דַאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן דְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִם מִצְוָה רַבָּה הִיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ אָנָה נֵצֵא, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם כֹּה אָמַר ה׳, אֲשֶׁר לַמָּוֶת – לַמָּוֶת, וַאֲשֶׁר לַחֶרֶב – לַחֶרֶב, וַאֲשֶׁר לָרָעָב – לָרָעָב, וַאֲשֶׁר לַשְּׁבִי – לַשֶּׁבִי״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַמְאוּחָר בְּפָסוּק זֶה קָשֶׁה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ.
Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: Concerning this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is it derived? Rabba bar Mari said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” (Jeremiah 15:2). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whichever punishment is written later in this verse is more severe than the one before it.
Limits (and exceptions to the limits) of Redemption of Captives
1) תלמוד בבלי מסכת גיטין דף מה עמוד א
מתני’. אין פודין את השבויין יתר על כדי דמיהן, מפני תיקון העולם . . .
גמ’. איבעיא להו: האי מפני תיקון העולם – משום דוחקא דצבורא הוא, או דילמא משום דלא לגרבו ולייתו טפי? ת”ש: דלוי בר דרגא פרקא לברתיה בתליסר אלפי דינרי זהב. אמר אביי: ומאן לימא לן דברצון חכמים עבד? דילמא שלא ברצון חכמים עבד.
Babylonian Talmud Gittin 45a
Mishna: Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value because of tikkun olam.
Gemara: The question was raised: Does this tikkun olam relate to the burden which may be imposed on the community or to the possibility that the activities [of the captors] may be stimulated?
Come and hear: Levi the son of Darga ransomed his daughter for thirteen thousand dinars of gold.
Said Abaye: But are you sure that he acted with the consent of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the will of the Sages.
2) רש”י מסכת גיטין דף מה עמוד א
גמ’ . מפני דוחקא דציבורא הוא – אין לנו לדחוק הצבור ולהביאו לידי עניות בשביל אלו.
או דילמא – דלא ימסרו עובדי כוכבים נפשייהו וליגרבו ולייתו טפי מפני שמוכרין אותן ביוקר ונפקא מינה אם יש לו אב עשיר או קרוב שרוצה לפדותו בדמים הרבה ולא יפילהו על הצבור.
Rashi to Babylonian Talmud Gittin 45a:
“Because of the burden imposed on the community” We should not burden the community by impoverishing it for this.
“Or to the possibility” that the idolaters will be willing to sacrifice their lives in order to capture more people and bring them to ransom because they can sell them for a great gain. The practical difference is regarding a situation where the captive has a rich father or relative who wants to redeem him for much money and not hold the community responsible.
3) תוספות מסכת גיטין דף מה עמוד א
דלא ליגרבו ולייתו – והא דתניא בפ’ נערה (כתובות נב.) נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנה עד עשרה בדמיה פעם ראשון פודה שאני אשתו דהויא כגופו יותר מבתו דהכא ועל
עצמו לא תיקנו שלא יתן כל אשר לו בעד נפשו
ור’ יהושע בן חנניא דפרקיה לההוא תינוק בממון הרבה בהניזקין (לקמן דף נח.) לפי שהיה מופלג בחכמה
אי נמי בשעת חורבן הבית לא שייך דלא ליגרבו.
Tosafot:
“So they shouldn’t grab (captives) and bring (them to ransom)”
However, there is a baraita in the chapter Na’arah (Ketubot 52a); she was captured and they asked for her up to ten times her worth. The first time he (the husband) must redeem.
1) A wife is different because she is like part of his own body more than his daughter; for her (his daughter) and for himself the (rabbis) did not fix that he should give more than he is worth.
2) R’ Yehoshua ben Hananya redeemed the child for much more money than his worth (Gittin 58a) since he was exceptionally wise.
3) Also, after the destruction of the temple, the concept “so that they should not seize (captives)” is not applicable.
5) תלמוד בבלי מסכת גיטין דף נח עמוד א
ת”ר: מעשה ברבי יהושע בן חנניה שהלך לכרך גדול שברומי, אמרו לו: תינוק אחד יש בבית האסורים, יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים. הלך ועמד על פתח בית האסורים, אמר: (ישעיהו מב:כד) “מי נתן למשיסה יעקב וישראל לבוזזים?” ענה אותו תינוק ואמר: “הלא ה’ זו חטאנו לו ולא אבו בדרכיו הלוך ולא שמעו בתורתו”(ישעיהו מב:כד). אמר: מובטחני בו שמורה הוראה בישראל, העבודה! שאיני זז מכאן עד שאפדנו בכל ממון שפוסקין עליו. אמרו: לא זז משם עד שפדאו בממון הרבה, ולא היו ימים מועטין עד שהורה הוראה בישראל. ומנו? רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע.
Babylonian Talmud Gitttin 58a:
Our Rabbis have taught: R. Joshua ben (the son of) Hananiah went to the great city of Rome, and he was told there that there was in the prison a child with beautiful eyes and face and curly locks. He went and stood at the doorway of the prison and said, “Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the robbers?”(Isaiah 42:24). 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” (Isaiah 42:24). 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.
6) תוספות מסכת גיטין דף נח עמוד א
כל ממון שפוסקין עליו – כי איכא סכנת נפשות פודין שבויין יותר על כדי דמיהן כדאמרינן בפרק השולח (לעיל דף מד.) גבי מוכר עצמו ואת בניו לעובדי כוכבים כ”ש הכא דאיכא קטלא אי נמי משום דמופלג בחכמה היה.
6) Tosafot, Gittin 58a
“Whatever price may be demanded” When there is a danger to human life, the captives are ransomed for more than their worth as we say in chapter ha-sholei-ah, (above page 44a). If we say that this is the case when someone sold himself and his children to idol worshippers and they are about to be killed, even more so it should be the case when dealing with someone who is exceptional in his wisdom.
Historical Precedent-Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg
ים של שלמה מסכת גיטין פרק ד
שמעתי על מהר"ם מרוטנבר"ק זכרונו לברכה, שהיה תפוס במגדול אייגזהם כמה שנים, והשר תבע מן הקהלות סך גדול, והקהלות היו רוצים לפדותו, ולא הניח, כי אמר אין פודין השבויים יותר מכדי דמיהם. ותמה אני, מאחר שהיה תלמיד חכם מופלג, ולא היה כמותו בדורו בתורה ובחסידות, ושרי לפדותו בכל ממון שבעולם, ואם מרוב ענותנותו לא רצה להחזיק עצמו כתלמיד חכם מופלג, מכל מקום היה לו לחוש על ביטול תורה, כאשר כתב בעצמו, שהוא היה יושב בחושך וצלמות, בלי תורה ואורה, והיה מקונן שלא היו אצלו ספרי הפוסקים והתוספות, ואיך לא היה חש לעון ביטול התורה, מאחר שרבים צריכים לו. ובודאי דעתו היה, שאם יפדו אותו, אם כן יש למיחש שלא יעשו כן כל השרים לתלמיד חכם המופלג שבדור, בעבור רוב הממון, עד שלא יספיק ממון הגולה לפדותם, ותשתכח התורה מישראל. כי גם שמעתי שהיה בדעת אותו הצורר לתפוס גם הרא"ש תלמידו, ונודע לו, וברח לטוליטילא, ונצול ברחמיו וברב חסדיו. ומשום הכי אמר החסיד, מוטב שתאבד מעט חכמה היתרת מישראל, ממה שתאבד חכמת התורה עיקר, וזה האות שאז פסקה אותו הדבר והשמד לתפוס חכמי הגולה, ותו שנינו, אין מבריחין את השבויים, מפני תיקון העולם, רשב"ג אומר מפני תקנת השבויין, ומסיק, מאי בינייהו, איכא בינייהו דליכא אלא חד שבוי, ת"ק חייש לתיקון העולם כולו, שמא יקצפו על השבויין העתידים לבא, ויתנום בשלשלאות ובחריצים, ור"ש לא חייש, אלא אם כן יש שבויין אחרים עמו, שמא יקצפו על השבויים, לייסרן ביסורים. ולדעת ר"ת ור"י הלכה כרשב"ג במשנתינו (רא"ש כתובות פי"ג, סוס"י י"ז), ולדעת הר"ן (שם, ק"י ע"ב) והרמב"ם (ה' אישות פי"ז הט"ו, ועוד), דלא ס"ל האי כלל, הלכה כת"ק, על כן הכרעתי בפרק נערה סימן (י"ח) [ל"ו] כהרי"ף והרמב"ם:
Yam Shel Shlomo
I heard about our teacher and Rabbi, R. Meir of Rothenburg, may his memory be for a blessing, who was held captive in the fortress at Ensisheim for a certain number of years, and the ruler demanded from the communities an exorbitant ransom, and the communities wished to pay but he [R. Meir] did not allow this. He said that it is not permitted to ransom captives for more than their worth. I am flabbergasted, as he was an exceptionally great Torah scholar, and there was none like him in Torah and piety in his generation, and it is permissible to ransom him for all the money in the world. If due to his humility, he did not consider himself to be an exceptionally great Torah scholar, at any rate he should have considered the amount of Torah learning that would be lost—as he himself wrote, that he sat in darkness without Torah and light; and he lamented his lack of the works of the poskim and Tosafot; and how could he not have considered the sin of loss of Torah, since the public needed him. Clearly, his opinion was that if they ransomed him, one need fear lest all of the rulers take the greatest Torah scholar of the generation into captivity for ransom so great that the means of the diaspora communities would not be sufficient to ransom them, and the Torah would be forgotten from Israel. I also heard that the same evil ruler wanted to seize his student, Rosh [Rabbenu Asher]. He got wind of this and fled to Tulitila and was saved by G-d’s compassion and mercy. Because of this, the pious one [Maharam] said that it is better that a little wisdom be lost from Israel than the total loss of all Torah scholarship. And this is the sign [that he was correct], that at that time they ceased seizing the diaspora sages.
Your Life Comes First
“And your brother shall live with you” (Leviticus 25:36), ..Rabbi Yoḥanan, ...requires the verse for that which is taught in a baraita: If two people were walking on a desolate path and there was a jug [kiton] of water in the possession of one of them, and the situation was such that if both drink from the jug, both will die, as there is not enough water, but if only one of them drinks, he will reach a settled area, there is a dispute as to the halakha. Ben Petora taught: It is preferable that both of them drink and die, and let neither one of them see the death of the other. This was the accepted opinion until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that the verse states: “And your brother shall live with you,” indicating that your life takes precedence over the life of the other.
(כ) וַיַּ֥עַן יוֹאָ֖ב וַיֹּאמַ֑ר חָלִ֤ילָה חָלִ֙ילָה֙ לִ֔י אִם־אֲבַלַּ֖ע וְאִם־אַשְׁחִֽית׃ (כא) לֹא־כֵ֣ן הַדָּבָ֗ר כִּ֡י אִישׁ֩ מֵהַ֨ר אֶפְרַ֜יִם שֶׁ֧בַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִ֣י שְׁמ֗וֹ נָשָׂ֤א יָדוֹ֙ בַּמֶּ֣לֶךְ בְּדָוִ֔ד תְּנוּ־אֹת֣וֹ לְבַדּ֔וֹ וְאֵלְכָ֖ה מֵעַ֣ל הָעִ֑יר וַתֹּ֤אמֶר הָאִשָּׁה֙ אֶל־יוֹאָ֔ב הִנֵּ֥ה רֹאשׁ֛וֹ מֻשְׁלָ֥ךְ אֵלֶ֖יךָ בְּעַ֥ד הַחוֹמָֽה׃ (כב) וַתָּבוֹא֩ הָאִשָּׁ֨ה אֶל־כׇּל־הָעָ֜ם בְּחׇכְמָתָ֗הּ וַֽיִּכְרְת֞וּ אֶת־רֹ֨אשׁ שֶׁ֤בַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי֙ וַיַּשְׁלִ֣כוּ אֶל־יוֹאָ֔ב וַיִּתְקַע֙ בַּשֹּׁפָ֔ר וַיָּפֻ֥צוּ מֵעַל־הָעִ֖יר אִ֣ישׁ לְאֹהָלָ֑יו וְיוֹאָ֛ב שָׁ֥ב יְרוּשָׁלַ֖͏ִם אֶל־הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ {ס}
|
1Now there chanced to be there a base man, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite; and he blew a 'shofar' and declared, "We have no portion of David, neither have we an inheritence in the son of Jesse; every man to his tents, O' Israel." 2And all the men of Israel went up from after David, following Sheba the son of Bichri, but the men of Judah cleaved to their king from the Jordan until Jerusalem... 15 And they came and they besieged him in Abel of Beth-maacah, and they spilled [dirt to form] a mound against the city and it stood with [only] its inner wall; and all the people that were with Joab were battering to throw down the wall. 16 And a wise woman called out from within the city, 'Hear, hear; say, I pray you, to Joab: 'Come closer to here so that I may speak to you.' 17 And he came near to her, and the woman said, "Are you Joab?" And he said, "I am" And she said to him: 'Hear the words of your handmaid.' And he said: 'I am listening.' 18 And she spoke saying: "Surely they should have spoken first [to hear what they have] to say, had they inquired of [the people of] Abel, and so would they have made peace. 19 I am of [those] that are peaceful and faithful to Israel; [Why then] do you seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel? Why should you swallow up the inheritance of the Lord?" 20 And Joab answered: 'Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up, or that I should destroy. 21 The matter is not so; but a man of the hills of Ephraim named Sheba the son of Bichri has lifted his hand against the king, against David; Give us him alone and I will depart from the city.' And the woman said to Joab, "His head shall be thrown to you over the wall." 22 And the woman came to all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri and threw it to Joab. And he blew the shofar, and they dispersed from the city, every man to his tents. And Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king. |
Mishneh Torah (Rambam) Sefer Hamada Yesodei haTorah Chapter Five
By Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon ("Maimonides")
5 If gentiles tell [a group of] women: "Give us one of you to defile. If not, we will defile all of you," they should allow themselves all to be defiled rather than give over a single Jewish soul to [the gentiles].
Similarly, if gentiles told [a group of Jews]: "Give us one of you to kill. If not, we will kill all of you," they should allow themselves all to be killed rather than give over a single soul to [the gentiles].
However, if [the gentiles] single out [a specific individual] and say: "Give us so and so or we will kill all of you," [different rules apply]: If the person is obligated to die like Sheva ben Bichri, they may give him over to them. Initially, however, this instruction is not conveyed to them. If he is not obligated to die, they should allow themselves all to be killed rather than give over a single soul to [the gentiles].
Saving Life
Mishneh Torah (Rambam) Sefer Nezikin-Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh 1:14
Whenever a person can save another person's life, but he fails to do so, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Leviticus 19:16 states: "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake."
Similarly, this commandment applies when a person sees a colleague drowning at sea or being attacked by robbers or a wild animal, and he can save him himself or can hire others to save him. Similarly, it applies when he hears gentiles or mosrim conspiring to harm a colleague or planning a snare for him, and he does not inform him and notify him of the danger.
And it applies when a person knows of a gentile or a man of force who has a complaint against a colleague, and he can appease the aggressor on behalf of his colleague, but he fails to do so. And similarly, in all analogous instances, a person who fails to act transgresses the commandment: "Do not stand idly by while your brother's blood is at stake."
Endangering Life To Save Another
Yerushalmi Terumot 8:10
Rebbi Issi was captured in Safsufa (by bandits). Rebbi Jonathan said, may the dead be wrapped in his shroud. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if I should kill or be killed, I shall go and save him by force. He went and negotiated; they handed him (Isi) over to him (Reish Lakish).
Harav Yosef Karo- Sefer Kesef Mishnah (Rotzeach 1:14),
Cites the Hagahos Maimon who rules in accordance with the Yerushalmi that one is required to place himself in a Safek Sakana in order to save another Jew from an absolute life threatening situation. He explains that because the other person will definitely die and the rescuer will only potentially die, we worry about the definite and not the potential.
Shulchan Aruch Harav- The Laws of Shabbos-By Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi 329:8
When one sees a boat on which a Jew is traveling floundering at sea, or [he sees] a flooding river, or an individual being pursued by a non-Jew, it is a mitzvah for every person to desecrate the Shabbos in an effort to save them, even if it is doubtful that he will [be able to] save [them].
Nevertheless, if there is [mortal] danger involved [to his own person in attempting to save those in danger], he should not endanger himself to save them, since at present, he himself is not in [mortal] danger [and he is not obligated to place himself in that situation. This applies] even if he sees the other person dying. Even though there is only a question [whether his life would be endangered] and the other person is definitely [in mortal danger], nevertheless, it is said, “to live by them.” [Implied is that one] should not place himself in a situation where there is a question of mortal danger through fulfilling [the commandment], “Do not stand [idly by] while your fellow man’s blood [is at risk].”
Shulchan Aruch Harav Choshen Mishpat-By Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi
The Laws Governing Personal Injury and Their Relevant Regulations
7 When a person sees another person drowning in a sea or being attacked by thieves and he is able to save him, either through his own efforts and/or by hiring others to save him, he is obligated to make such [personal] efforts and/or hire others to save him. He may afterwards collect any expenses incurred from the person he saved, if that person has the resources. [Nevertheless, even] if the victim does not have the resources [to reimburse the one who saved him], that person should not refrain from saving [the victim]. If he does refrain, he violates the prohibition: “Do not stand [idly by] while your fellow man’s blood [is at risk].”
Even when there is doubt as to whether one’s own life will be endangered, there are authorities who require [one to take the risk] in order to save another person from definite death. (There are, however, other authorities who differ. Since danger to one’s life is involved, the more lenient ruling is followed.)
Harav Yoel Serkes zt”l (Sma C.M 426), in his commentary on Shulchan Aruch, noted that the Rama and Shulchan Aruch both omit this ruling from their writings. It is in no doubt due to the fact that the pillars of halacha, the Rosh, Rif, and Rambam, all omitted the ruling of the Yerushalmi. It also seems that Rabbeinu Yona, in his Sefer Issur V’Heter (59:38), disagrees with the Hagahos Maimon and rules that one is not required to enter a potentially dangerous situation in order to save a person in life threatening danger. The Mishnah Berurah (329:19) also rules that one is not required to endanger himself in order to save another.
The Aruch Hashulchan explains that the reason all these Rishonim do not rule in accordance with the Yerushalmi is that the Talmud Bavli disagrees with the Yerushalmi. He does not, however, include a source from the Bavli that would imply a convey a view different from that of the Yerushalmi. See the Tzitz Eliezer (9:45) who cites potential sources from the Bavli that seem to disagree with the Yerushalmi.
The Radvaz (3:627) feels that according to the vast majority of opinions who do not require one to endanger himself in order to save another person. Not only is one not required to do so, one is not allowed to do so. He writes that one who places himself in Safek Sakana in order to save his friend is a “foolishly pious individual” and the potential risk out ways the mortal danger facing his friend. One is not allowed to endanger himself in order to perform a Mitzvah or in order to avoid a sin (except idolatry, murder, and sexual relations). Therefore, it is not permitted to endanger one’s self in order to avoid performing the sin of Lo Saamod Al Dam Re’acha. This ruling was also cited by Harav Yitzchak Weiss zt”l (Minchas Yitzchak 6:103).
Harav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:174:4) disagrees with the ruling of the Radvaz. He explains that although normally one may not endanger himslef in order to avoid a sin, in this case one is permitted since his actions will lead to a Jewish person being saved. According to Harav Moshe zt”l the whole dabate is whether one is required to enter a Safek Sakana in order to save his friend. However, everyone agrees that one is permitted to do so.
Harav Ovadia Yosef zt”l (Yechava Daas 3:84) found a discrepancy in the writings of the Radvaz. In one response the Radvaz writes that one is not permitted to endanger himself in order to save his friend. While in another response he writes that one is required to enter a somewhat dangerous situation in order to save someone from a life threatening situation.
Harav Yosef zt”l explains that there is no contradiction. If there is a 50%, or more, chance of death one is not allowed to save his friend. One is not allowed to perform an act with such a high risk of death, even in order to save his friend. If the chance of death is less than 50% one is required to save his friend. In this case the chance of death is so small that the reward of saving a Jew out ways the potential danger. He adds that the Radvaz, himself, seems to indicate such a distinction in one of the responses.
The Radvaz does add that there is no requirement to donate a limb in order to save another jew, even if donating a limb involves a small risk of death. He explains that the ways of the Torah are sweet and the Torah would never require someone to become mutilated and deformed. What if donating eyes could save a life, reasons the Radvaz, you would have half of Klal Yisroel missing eyes? The Torah cannot require such a thing. Although it is praiseworthy, the Torah would never require organ donation.
War is different!
Minchat Chinuch 425:3
Granted that all mitzvot are overridden in the face of danger, still, the Torah instructed us to do battle for this mitzvah. It is known that the Torah will not depend upon miracles, as explained by Ramban [Bamidbar 5:20], and it is normal for people to be killed on both sides in a war, and so we see that the Torah decrees to do battle despite the danger. If so, then the concern for danger is overridden in this case.
Rav Schachter, “Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective,” RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 16.
Although generally in a case of pidyon sh'vuyim (rescue of captives) the Jewish community is forbidden to ransom a captive for an exorbitant sum, the ruling in the case of a great scholar is that he should be ransomed even for a sum that exceeds his "worth." Thus, many Rabbis were of the opinion that every effort should be made to secure Rav Hutner's release. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky dissented, however, arguing that the mitzvah of pidyon sh'vuyim only applies in peacetime, but surely not during hostilities, when the delivery of ransom money to the enemy would strengthen their position! He continued to explain that although a cease-fire existed at the time, the 1948 War of Independence had never really ended, for the Arabs' avowed goal to destroy the State of Israel and drive the Jews into the sea had never been renounced. In his view, although Israel was not then engaged in active battle, in the eyes of the halacha it was considered to be experiencing a mere lull in the ongoing original 1948 War of Independence.