Dilemma Being Addressed
JDC has the opportunity to redeem Jews from a particular country. That is, to pay-per-head for the right of Jews to leave the country which they are currently barred from leaving. There are two conditions that make this decision a challenge.
The first is that the regime chooses who leaves, in return for the payment. They reserve the right to decide who is eligible, and can limit the exits to elderly, infirm, etc. - whomever they choose.
The second is that the payment that is transferred willy nilly bolsters the economy of the regime that in turn abuses all of the country's population. The payment that will free Jews strengthens a regime that is universally abhorred.
Some questions that arise while studying this dilemma
- *Is one Jew/person more important than another?
- Is an infirm person less or more valuable than a healthy one? (Slippery Slope)
- Holocaust lessons (The Kastner Train, for example); "Selections?"
- Why are we saving the Jews only? Shouldn't we be trying to save the whole world?
- *Saving a life is paramount in Judaism, something for which we are supposed to desecrate the Shabbat. Do we know that the Jews' lives that we are saving are more in danger so that the other citizens of that abused country? Do we save one life if another is put in danger with that action?
- Will this country in question abuse its citizens with and without this money? (sounds like it) Does this JDC money make any real difference how they behave? (will they get this money elsewhere?)
- Let's start from the beginning in our Jewish sources....
- Why are we saving lives anyways? Why do we care so much about our brethren to save them in other lands? (which is the mission of JDC)
צֶ֥דֶק צֶ֖דֶק תִּרְדֹּ֑ף לְמַ֤עַן תִּֽחְיֶה֙ וְיָרַשְׁתָּ֣ אֶת־הָאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יי אֱלֹקֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ׃ (ס)
This was originally talking about "justice" in the jurisprudence sense, but has gone on to imply "justice" in the "human rights" way, especially in more liberal Jewish circles. Tikun Olam
(יח) לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יי
(18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.
Traditionally it has been interpreted to mean your fellow Jew (the idea of Ahavat Yisroel), but "fellow" can also be interpreted as any one.
- What are the pros and cons of this Mitzvah meaning just your fellow Jew or meaning every person on the globe? Can we love everyone? Anyone?
(2) Thou Shalt Love The Fellow as Thyself —Rabbi Akiba said: “This is a fundamental principle of the Torah”.
- This language is hardly used about anything in the Torah.
What do you think Rabbi Akiva meant with this? What does a fundamental principal mean in your mind? Why is it so important? (Bear in mind that Rabbi Akiva stemmed from a family of converts that was not always part of the Jewish people).
(3) I am God means: I, a single God, have created all of you.
According to Eben Ezra (1089-1167), the reason for this love, goes back to Genesis, where Adam is described as being made in the image of god. If we were all created by the same god, then we are all equal and we should all love each other (or at least treat each other with respect).
When do you think one can be exempt from this tall order? Can a person lose his "image of God" status?
(א) אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁעוּר. הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם:
(1) These are the things that have no measure: Peah [corner of the field which, while harvesting, must be left for the poor], Bikurim [First-fruits that must be brought to the Temple and given to the priest], the appearance-sacrifice [brought to the Temple on Pilgrimage Festivals], acts of kindness, and the study of the Torah. These are things the fruits of which a man enjoys in this world, while the principal remains for him in the World to Come: Honoring one's father and mother, acts of kindness, and bringing peace between a man and his fellow. But the study of Torah is equal to them all.
"Acts of kindness" are mentioned in both categories in the Mishna. Acts of Kindness/Tzedaka/Charity/Righteousness has always loomed large in Judaism.
But are there limitations? How far does one have to go? Does one have to give up all of her possessions to feed the "Other." What do you think? (The Talmud creates rules for this...)
Acts of Kindness: Rabbi Ovadya of Bartenura (Italy 1445-1515) makes a distinction between physical acts (burying the dead; visiting the sick) where there is no measure, and monetary acts of kindness.
א"ר אילעא באושא התקינו המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש תניא נמי הכי המבזבז אל יבזבז יותר מחומש שמא יצטרך לבריות ומעשה באחד שבקש לבזבז [יותר מחומש] ולא הניח לו חבירו ומנו רבי ישבב ואמרי לה רבי ישבב ולא הניחו חבירו ומנו רבי עקיבא
One who scatters should not scatter more than one-fifth, lest he render himself destitute and need the help of other people. Rabbi Yeshevav wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so, and who was the friend? Rabbi Akiva.
Here he is again, the same Rabbi Akiva from source 3. Yet here he is saying that you should not give away more than a fifth of your possessions to charity.
Do you think there is any significance--if any--in that? What are his two statements trying to say? Are they possibly somehow connected? Is he saying that there are limitations to even the "great" mitzvahs--like Redeeming Captives (פדיון שבוים)
And now we come to "our" Mitzvah--redeeming of captive/s...
(ט) כָּל גֵּר הָאָמוּר בְּמַתְּנוֹת עֲנִיִּים אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא גֵּר צֶדֶק. שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי (דברים יד כט) "וּבָא הַלֵּוִי וְהַגֵּר" מָה הַלֵּוִי בֶּן בְּרִית אַף הַגֵּר בֶּן בְּרִית. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן אֵין מוֹנְעִין עֲנִיֵּי עַכּוּ''ם מִמַּתָּנוֹת אֵלּוּ. אֶלָּא בָּאִין בִּכְלַל עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנוֹטְלִין אוֹתָן מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:
We don't withhold these gifts to the poor from a non-Jew, but they benefit from them just as the poor of Israel in order to enhance the ways of peace.
Do you feel uncomfortable with the exclusivity of the Jewish poor and the language of Maimonides (1135-1204. Spain/Egypt) "enhance the ways of peace?" Would you change that language in a modern context? Or is there something to be said to be taking care of your family/clan/tribe first?
פדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא
redeeming captives is a great mitzva.
This language is also unique when describing a Mitzvah. Very rare.
Is this similar to Rabbi Akiva saying that "loving your fellow Jew is a "Fundamental Rule" of the Torah? Or different? Why do you think the Mitzvah of Redeeming Captives is so "great?"
פדיון שבוים מצוה רבה. והא דאמר בפרק בני העיר (מגילה דף כז.) אין מוכרין ס"ת אלא ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה ולא קתני פדיון שבוים שמא מילתא דפשיטא היא ולא איצטריך למיתני:
It's stated that one is not supposed to sell a Sefer Torah unless to Study Torah or to get married. But it does not say that we can sell it to "redeem captives." Why not? (being that it's such a "great" mitzvah"). It's self-explanatory and didn't even have to be stated.
(י) פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים קוֹדֵם לְפַרְנָסַת עֲנִיִּים וְלִכְסוּתָן. וְאֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה גְּדוֹלָה כְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים שֶׁהַשָּׁבוּי הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל הָרְעֵבִים וְהַצְּמֵאִים וַעֲרוּמִּים וְעוֹמֵד בְּסַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת. וְהַמַּעֲלִים עֵינָיו מִפִּדְיוֹנוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹבֵר עַל (דברים טו ז) "לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ" וְעַל (ויקרא יט טז) "לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל דַּם רֵעֶךָ" וְעַל (ויקרא כה נג) "לֹא יִרְדֶּנּוּ בְּפֶרֶךְ לְעֵינֶיךָ". וּבִטֵּל מִצְוַת (דברים טו ח) (דברים טו יא) "פָתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לוֹ". וּמִצְוַת (ויקרא כה לו) "וְחֵי אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ". (ויקרא יט יח) "וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ". (משלי כד יא) "וְהַצֵּל לְקֻחִים לַמָּוֶת" וְהַרְבֵּה דְּבָרִים כָּאֵלּוּ. וְאֵין לְךָ מִצְוָה רַבָּה כְּפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִים:
(10) Redeeming captives takes precedence over feeding and clothing the poor. And there is no commandment as great as redeeming captives, for a captive is among the hungry, thirsty, naked, and is in mortal danger. And one who averts one eyes from redeeming him/her violates, "You shall not harden your heart, and you shall not shut your hand," and, "Do not stand by your brother's blood," and "You shall not work him with hard labor before your eyes," and has neglected the commandment, "You shall surely open your hand to him," and the commandment, "And your brother shall live with you," "And you shall love your fellow as yourself," "Save those who are take to death," and many like these. And there is no great commandment like redemption of captives.
(יב) אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים בְּיֶתֶר עַל דְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים רוֹדְפִין אַחֲרֵיהֶם לִשְׁבּוֹתָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִים מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים מַכְבִּידִין עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הָעל וּמַרְבִּים בִּשְׁמִירָתָן:
We do not redeem captives for more than they are worth (going-rate, so to speak) to "preserve society." So that the enemies should not pursue people to capture them (in order to receive a big reward). Similarly, you shouldn't help captives escape to "preserve society," so that the enemy should not increase the hardship and surveillance (of the remaining captives).
In our times, we see many countries (including the U.S.) who don't deal with terrorists or groups who take hostages for large ransom amounts.
Gilad Shalit? Swapping a captive for prisoners/terrorists? Is there any price worth that? letting the enemy kill just to save one life? Will this Repressive regime kill people in retribution of these freed Jews?
(ד) אֵין פּוֹדִין הַשְּׁבוּיִים יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי דְּמֵיהֶם, מִפְּנֵי תִּקוּן הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ הָאוֹיְבִים מוֹסְרִים עַצְמָם עֲלֵיהֶם לִשְׁבּוֹתָם. אֲבָל אָדָם יָכוֹל לִפְדּוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּכָל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. וְכֵן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם, אוֹ אֲפִלוּ אֵינוֹ תַּלְמִיד חָכָם, אֶלָא שֶׁהוּא תַּלְמִיד חָרִיף וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אָדָם גָדוֹל, פּוֹדִים אוֹתוֹ בְּדָמִים מְרֻבִּים.
(4) Captives are not to be ransomed at an unreasonable cost, for the safety of society; otherwise, the enemies would exert every effort to capture victims. But a man may ransom himself at any price. So also, a scholar should be ransomed at a greater price, or even a student who gives promise of becoming a great scholar.
Take-Away:
- Love your Fellow as yourself is a fundamental rule (Golden Rule)
- Tzedaka is very important, but don't sell your house for it
- Redeeming a Captive/saving a life (in modern times: political refugees?) is of prime importance, more so than normal charity/tzedaka
- Don't overpay for them (more people will die), or do anything that will cause Banana Republic scenarios (but if one exists already...)
- A definite saving of a life probably overrides the possible taking of a life
- We are all created in God's image, so when dealing with lives and dignity, be extra cautious.