In the year 1286, during his attempt to move to
Israel, the Maharam was captured and imprisoned in a castle in
Ensisheim. He remained a prisoner for seven years, until his death.
Eventually his body was released (after a heavy ransom was paid) and was
buried in Worms.
There are several references in his writings, as well as those of his students’, to his imprisonment.
[1] One disciple, Rav Meir Ha-kohen, the author of
Hagahot Maimoniyot, mentions in his writings questions which he referred to his rabbi, indicating that he was able to visit him.
[2]
During these years of confinement, Rav Meir
worked on a commentary on the Mishna as well as halakhic responsa to
questions of the time.
There is a popular claim that the Jewish
community raised a large amount of money for his release, but the
Maharam refused to allow the ransom to be paid. His concern was that
this would encourage the authorities to kidnap other rabbis and leaders
of the Jewish community.[3] The source of this claim is Rav Shelomo Luria (1510-1574, Poland):[4]
I heard that the Maharam of
Rothenburg was held captive in a tower in Ensisheim for a number of
years. The minister demanded from the communities a large sum (to be
paid for his release). The communities were willing to pay the ransom,
but Rav Meir refused, quoting the rule that captives may not be redeemed
at more than their worth.
I am surprised, as it is permitted to redeem him at any cost; he (the Maharam) was a prominent talmid chakham
and was considered the greatest of his generation in Torah and
righteousness. Nevertheless, perhaps he was too humble to consider
himself such a great person; still, he should have been concerned about
his own bittul Torah (wasting time for Torah study), as remaining in captivity affected his Torah learning.
He then goes on to explain that it is clear that
Rav Meir thought that if he were to be ransomed at a heavy price, the
kidnapping of rabbis would turn into a trend; thus, the entire Torah
world would suffer.
The story of his refusal to be redeemed has
served as an important source for the many halakhic dilemmas throughout
the centuries raised in the cases of Jewish prisoners in similar
situations.
The mitzva of redeeming captives
The mitzva of redeeming captives is considered a great one, as explained by the Rambam:
The redemption of captives receives
priority over sustaining the poor and providing them with clothing.
[Indeed,] there is no greater mitzva than the redemption of captives.
For a captive is among those who are hungry, thirsty, and unclothed, as
well as in mortal peril… There is no mitzva as great as the redemption
of captives (
pidyon shevuyim).
[5]
However, the
mishna in
Gittin (4:6) rules that "captives may not be ransomed for more than their value.”
This reason given by the Mishna for this halakha is because of tikkun olam
(the welfare of the world). In other words, we must act responsibly for
the entire people of Israel and not necessarily think only about the
individual. We must consider the welfare of the community against the
welfare of the captive.
The Gemara
[6] suggests two possible reasons for this ruling:
- Preventing a "burden on the community," as
collecting large sums of money to free a captive may cause great strain
on the entire community.
- Discouraging extortion, as paying exorbitant sums of money in exchange for captives inevitably encourages more kidnappings.
The Rishonim argue which of the above two
reasons is the primary one. Some argue that if the captive in question
is in a life-threating situation, then there is no limit to the price we
must pay.
[7] Should the Mishna’s decree hold up in the face of
pikuach nefesh? Although the first reason would not withstand the challenge, the second reason might.
Rashi explains that another nafka mina
is in a case in which the captive has a wealthy relative. In this
situation, as the burden does not fall on the community, the only
concern is the dangerous precedent this might cause.
Redeeming a Talmid Chakham
The Gemara tells us that Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Chananya, while visiting Rome, was introduced to a good-looking Jewish
boy in prison.
Rabbi Yehoshua quizzed the boy in his Torah knowledge and realized that the boy was well-acquainted with Tanakh.
At this point, he exclaimed: “I am certain that this boy will become a
rabbi; I will not leave here until I redeem him for whatever price they
demand.”
The Gemara concludes the story by informing us that this boy grew up to become the great sage and
kohen gadol, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha.
[8]
The obvious question is the following: how does
this opinion fit with the rabbinical ruling mentioned above? The
Rishonim offer several answers.
One possibility, suggest Tosafot, is that after
the destruction of the Temple, many Jews became targets for kidnappings;
thus, paying a high ransom would not cause more or less kidnappings to
happen.
[9]
Another answer, according to Tosafot, is that this story is an exception to the rule, as it is permitted to redeem a
talmid chakham for more than he is worth. This opinion is brought down in
Shulchan Arukh.
[10]
Exceptions
However, this is not the only exception to the Mishna’s rule.
Rav Yosef Karo rules that the
prohibition is on the community; however, an individual ransoming
himself or his wife may pay any price for their freedom.
[11]
In practice
In practice, it seems that there is an
inconsistency between the Mishna’s rule and the actual practice of
ransoming Jewish prisoners
Jewish history is filled with stories of Jews redeeming each other for exorbitant sums of money.
For example, the Gemara mentions that Levi bar Darga ransomed his daughter for the sum of thirteen thousand gold dinars.
[12]
During the 15
th century, Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel raised a large sum of money to redeem two hundred and fifty Jews who had been taken captive.
[13]
During the 18th century, Rav Natan,
the great student of Rav Nachman of Breslav, recalled how his rabbi was
taken captive and was ransomed by the Rhodes Jewish community.
Explanations
Rav Shelomo Luria
)16
th
century) testifies that, in his time, Jews are redeeming Jewish
prisoners for far more than they are worth, “since they are willing to
overlook the financial burden on the community.”
[14]
Similarly, Rav David ibn Zimra, Radbaz
(1479-1573) attempts to justify the custom in his time that entirely
ignores the Mishna’s ruling. He first testifies that:
The custom of all the Jewish people is to ransom
their captives more than their value in the marketplace, for an elderly
man or minor are only worth twenty dinars, yet they are redeemed for
one hundred dinars or more.
He then explains that the communities rely on
several reasons for this lenient practice. Among them is the claim that
the kidnappers are not singling out Jews, as they kidnap non-Jews as
well. This argument deals with the Gemara’s concern that paying off the
kidnappers will increase the number of abductions.
[15]
He continues to explain that the reasons for the lenient practice to
ransom groups of Jewish captives is also based on the existence of
talmidei chakhamim as well as children who are at risk of being converted.
A modern case of the abduction of a gadol and the halakhic discussion surrounding his release occurred fifty years ago.
In the summer of 1970, Rav Yitzchak Hutner
boarded a plane which was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists and forced
to land in Jordan.
Basing themselves on the above-mentioned heter to redeem a talmid chakham at any cost, a group of American Jewish leaders gathered and discussed the possibility of ransoming Rav Hutner.
Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky voiced his opinion that under these circumstances, the heter
cannot be used. He argued that the hijacking was considered
halakhically an act of war, falling under the halakhic definition of milchemet mitzva, a war which one has a mitzva to fight in.
Rav Hershel Schachter recalls the events, as well as the opinion of Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky:
…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.[16]
However, on 9 September 1970, Rav Moshe
Feinstein released a halakhic statement directed to the government of
Israel, demanding that its leaders comply with the demands of the
terrorists:
An urgent meeting of the Rabbinic
Council held a solemn discussion about the dangerous state of the
captives in Jordan and the difficulty of the State of Israel to reach a
decision on the matter. We saw fit to express our opinion, the opinion
of the Torah on this matter. In Jewish law, saving a life takes
precedence. If there is no choice, the State of Israel must comply with
the terrorists’ demand to save the hostages’ lives. May G-d protect His
people, and may the Jewish people live in peace.
[17]
Although the common practice for centuries has
been unofficially to pay a high and even exorbitant price to redeem
Jewish prisoners, the Maharam’s courageous decision to stay in jail is
in line with the spirit of the Talmudic sources. His ruling adds to his
unique status in Jewish history as one of the greatest Posekim of all
times.
[1] See Yona Emanuel,
Divrei Maharam Mei-Rothenburg Bi-shnot Ma’atzaro,
Ha-Ma’ayan 33 (1993).
[2] Hagahot Maimoniyot, Hilkhot Tefilla 14:8,
Hilkhot Keriat Shema 1:11
[3]
The biggest question this raises is why this story is not mentioned
earlier. Rabbeinu Yehuda, son of the Rosh, who was personally involved
in collecting the ransom money, does not mention the Maharam’s refusal
to be ransomed. See Ephraim Urbach,
Ba‘alei Ha-tosafot, p. 426; Simcha Emanuel, “Did Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg Refuse to Be Ransomed?”
Jewish Studies Quarterly 24, No.1 (2017) pp. 23–38; and Eitam Henkin,
Iyun Mei-chadash Be-farashat Shivyo shel Ha-Maharam Mei-Rothenburg, Yerushateinu, Vol. 5, pp. 311-318.
[5] Hilkhot Matenot Aniyim 8:10.
[13] See
Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol.1, p. 103.
[16] Rav Schachter, “Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective,”
RJJ Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 16.
