The New Synagogue of Netanya

Reports

This year we were privileged to listen to three lectures presented by Rabbi Doctor Nachum Amsel who is well known for his great contribution to and involvement in Jewish education. He is especially involved in STARS (Student Torah Alliance for Russian Speakers), a program for 3,000 students in the former Soviet Union to learn Torah. 

The third lecture on Motzei Shabbat dealt with the issue of ransoming captives -  specifically, how we as observant Jews should deal with the problem of perhaps trading hundreds of terrorists who will most likely try to murder Jews again if they were freed, for Gilad Schalit. We, of course, all want him back, but at what price? The discussion dealt with the problem as strictly a Jewish issue.  

Rabbi Amsel quoted many sources on the subject of whether and under what circumstances we should pay a ransom.

According to Leviticus (19:36) we have an obligation to ransom captives. Sanhedrin (37 A) states that, "whoso-ever preserves a single soul (of Israel)… as though he had preserved the whole world". The Rambam states that, "there is no more important mitzvah than redeeming hostages". The Shulchan Aruch states that he who ignores redeeming hostages violates the prohibition of, "you should not harden your heart, nor shut your hand from your poor brother" (Deuteronomy 5:7). It also states that, "anyone who delays in redeeming hostages where it is possible to do so, it as if he sheds blood". 

From the sources above we see that it is incumbent upon us to try to redeem Gilad Schalit. The only real question is at what price?  

The Shulchan Aruch says that one may not redeem a hostage for more money than he is worth in order to prevent abuses, so that enemies are not encouraged to keep taking hostages. We were reminded of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg (the Maharam) who was held hostage by the Duke of Lombardy. Rabbi Meir did not allow the community to pay his ransom because he was afraid that it would only encourage the taking of more hostages and thus the community would collapse financially. He cared more about the long-term welfare of his community than his own welfare. 

We were told of a case where one Levi Ben Darga ransomed his daughter for the tremendous sum of 13,000 dinarii of gold and he was not condemned. The Rabbis were ambivalent as to whether he should have paid or not. This was an emotional issue dealing with one individual ransoming another. When, however, the welfare of the community as a whole is at stake, the community's welfare takes precedence. 

Rabbi Amsel gave an example of the Knesset Budget Committee which has to decide how to spend its limited funds. There are many people waiting for kidney transplants or expensive life saving machines. How can the government spend money on roads and other infrastructure when people's lives are at stake? The answer is that the long-range welfare of the whole community is more important than the needs of a small number of individuals. 

We also have the precedent of having traded terrorists for soldiers before. In what is known as the "Jibril Trade" we freed 1150 terrorists for three soldiers. Was this the right thing to do in the long run? What is more important, preventing a possible (maybe probable) number of terrorist attacks or rescuing Gilad Schalit? This is our dilemma. On the one hand the community must not be held hostage to repeated kidnappings, on the other hand it might be better to give up terrorists so that soldiers feel that everything possible will be done to save them and therefore they will be better fighters. 

In the end it is up to the government to decide what is best for the community in the long run.   

Do We Really Need Outreach to Secular Jews?

Rabbi David Chernowsky stood in at short notice for his former student, Rabbi Edward Abramson, who was to have given this lecture. He began by pointing out that it is a mistake for observant Jews to consider themselves as having a monopoly on Ahavat Hashem, the love of G-d. The essential requisite for outreach was to under-stand that all Jews, even though they may be less, or even non-observant, and/or ignorant, have within them Ahavat Hashem. Moreover, this frequently shines through in the most difficult and unpromising circum-stances, which makes it all the more precious.  

Rabbi Chernowsky went on to give numerous instances from his vast experience as a Rabbi in remote communities where Jews, nevertheless, held fast to certain mitzvot, even though this was inconsistent with full observance. He also quoted such cases in the name of Rabbi Abramson. Both Rabbis, through personal example, which is another requisite for successful outreach, were able to point to whole families who, with the right encouragement, went on, often through great difficulties, to live fully observant lives. 

We should all think at least twice before criticizing our fellow Jews, including even well-known political figures who, nonetheless, act out of Ahava for their people. Rather, respect is the starting point for successful outreach.

The answer, then, to the question posed by the above title, has to be a resounding “Yes”. However, more than that, what came through is the essential unity of the Jewish people through their natural and instinctive Ahavas Hashem. 

The brave souls who ventured out on a cold and rainy night were rewarded by Rabbi Chernowsky's upbeat address and no less by the warmth of his personality. Our thanks are due to Mrs. Barbara Freudmann, who sponsored this lecture in memory of her late husband, Eddie, zal, and of course to Renie and Henry Hirsch and their committee for all their work in arranging this evening's lecture, and all the Education program.