Selected Responsa 123

which is ultimately responsible for the security of the people as a whole, must refuse to give in to them? In return for prisoners of war or civilian hostages, captors will set an exorbitant price, often the release of hundreds of imprisoned terrorists or criminals for each liberated Israeli . To yield to this demand might well entice other potential kidnappers to seize captives in the future; the freed prisoners, in addition, would pose a serious security risk to the Israeli public. The government may regard this price as excessive and, faced with a choice between the lives and freedom of its captive citizens and the safety of its population as a whole, refuse to pay it. Difficult as this decision must be, it is well in keeping with the Jewish legal tradition which, in the name of tikun ha-olam, sets limits on what communities may pay to redeem their captives.

Still, a case can be made for the opposing view, that no demand is too excessive or unreasonable when the lives of the captives are at stake. Some authorities rule that the limits imposed upon ransom payments apply only when the captors are interested solely in money. When they threaten to kill their hostages, however, the commandment to save life(pikuah nefesh) takes precedence over all else. While others disagree, this theory has been adopted by a leading contemporary halakhist, R. Ovadiah Yosef," who argues that in such instances the clear and present danger(vadai sakanah) to the lives of the hostages outweighs the potential danger(safek sakanah) to the rest of the population should the ransom be paid. On this basis Yosef concludes that Israel ought to pay the price, whatever it may

¢, which terrorists demand for the release of its captive citizens.

His opinion, however, is subject to a number of criticisms. First, it is by no means clear under Jewish law that individuals or Societies are required(or even permitted) to subject themselves to safek sakanah in order to rescue those in vadai sakanah.'®

Second, it is arguable that the danger posed to society by the Payment of exorbitant ransoms, while not as direct as that to the

EE)

Ostages, is no less“certain.

Third, R. Yosef bases his argument in part upon his claim that by giving in to terrorist demands we do not thereby invite further intimidation, since the terrorists are committed to a campaign of