Selected Responsa
There is a significant halakhic difference between these two explanations. Should we conclude that ransoms are limited due to the crushing burden they impose upon community treasuries, then there would be no restriction imposed upon the amount that wealthy individuals may pay out of their own funds to redeem their relatives. On the other hand, should we adopt the second theory, concern that high ransom payments encourage further kidnappings, then even the wealthy would be prohibited from paying more than the limit set by the Mishnah .
The Talmud does not resolve this issue, and the halakhic authorities are in dispute. The Rambam declares that ransoms are limited in order to discourage future kidnappings.” R. Asher ben Yechiel,® by contrast, rules that a private individual may exceed the ransom limit in order to redeem himself, his wife,” or a Torah scholar.'® Others expand the permit, allowing an individual to redeem any family member at any price." Such lenient rulings would imply that the limitation was instituted to safeguard the public treasury. The Shulhan Arukh strikes a balance between these alternatives: it simultaneously accepts Rambam 's explanation for the ransom limitation and R. Asher's exceptions to the rule."
While some, if not all, of these authorities permit individuals to exceed the Mishnah 's limitation upon ransom payments, none of them allows the community to do so. This distinction between the private and the public realms is eminently reasonable. The primary ethical responsibility of individuals, when confronting the captivity of loved ones, is to the captives themselves; that duty may be said 10 take precedence over their responsibilities toward society at large. i Governments, meanwhile, may not set such priorities; they ar charged with the protection of the entire community. As such, they are forbidden to yield to the extortionate sums demanded by the kidnappers, for to do so would encourage future attempts at hostagetaking and thereby expose the rest of their citizens to danger.
The government of Israel , in its dealings with hostage-takers, wrestles with the very dynamic described in the rabbinic sources Though the question may not involve the“monetary value” 0 captives, it does go to the issue of price: at what point do the demands of the kidnappers become“unreasonable,” so that the government