1. Kdei Dmeihem – Limitations on the amount of ransom payment:[1]

It is ruled in the Mishneh[2] and Poskim[3] that the sages instituted that one may not redeem a captive for more than his value [i.e. Kdei Dimeihem]. [This applies whether the captive is a man or a woman, and applies even if there is worry of sexual abuse with the captive.[4]]

How to measure the value of the captive: Some Poskim[5] rule that we follow the market value of the captive as he would be sold on the slave market [which was legal and common in previous times]. Other Poskim[6] rule that it follows the captives personal financial status, and as to whether he is wealthy or poor. Other Poskim[7] rule that it follows the black-market value for Gentile captives as accepted throughout the world.

The reason for the limitation: The Mishneh[8] states, as recorded in the Poskim[9], that the reason behind this restriction is due to “Tikkun Haolam,” which is an institution made for the betterment of the world. The Talmud offers two approaches in how to understand this institution and as to what world benefit they intended to achieve.

• The first approach is due to “Duchka Detzibura,” which means that the sages did not want to allow redeeming captives for more than their value being that doing so would bring economic burden onto the community, and potentially cause them to become destitute.
• The second approach is due to “Delo Ligrivu Velaysu,” which means that the sages did not want to allow redeeming captives for more than their value being that doing so encourages future kidnappings, as it shows potential kidnappers that kidnapping pays well.

In the first approach, the Sages were coming to protect the financial state of the community. In the second approach the Sages were coming to protect people from future kidnappings. The Talmud ibid does not give a final arbitration as to which of the two approaches is correct.[10]

Practical ramification between reasons:[11] The practical ramification between the two reasons and approaches is in regards to whether a wealthy individual may choose to pay the entire ransom on his own without throwing the burden onto the community. According to the first approach, it is permitted even if the value is much more than the value of the captive, being that it does not entail placing a financial burden onto the community. However, according to the second approach, doing so is forbidden, as irrelevant of who pays the ransom money, paying more money than the market value motivates future kidnappings, and is a danger to the community.

The ruling in Poskim: Some Poskim[12] rule like the first approach that it is due to “Duchka Detzibura.”  Other Poskim[13], however rule like the second approach that it is due to “Delo Ligrivu Velaysu,” and so is the practical ruling in the Shulchan Aruch. Practically, although the main ruling follows the second approach[14], although the widespread custom is like the first approach.[15]

The custom today: Some Poskim[16] record that the widespread custom today in many communities is to redeem captives for more than their market value, and to no longer abide by the above regulation of the Sages.[17] These communities are to be praised and are doing a very great Mitzvah.

____________________________________________________________

[1] Michaber Y.D. 252:4; Rambam Matanos Aniyim 8:12; Mishneh Gittin 45a

[2] Mishneh Gittin 45a; Braisa Kesubos 52a in opinion of Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that there are opinions in the Talmud which disagree with the entire institution and hold that there’s never a limitation regarding how much money one may pay for redeeming a captive. [1^st answer in Ramban Gittin 45a in opinion of Tana Kama in Kesubos 52a and in opinion of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Chanania in Gittin 58a]

[3] Michaber Y.D. 252:4

[4] See Shach 252:9-10; Beir Sheva p. 22; Ramban Gittin 45a

[5] Rashi Kesubos 52b; Ritva Kesubos 52b in name of Rashi and Raavad; Maggid Mishneh Ishus 14:19; Nimukei Yosef; Piskei Riaz; Meiri Gittin 45a; Maharam Milublin 15, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 252:5 [there he rules that this applies even today even though there is no longer a slave market in most of the world, and one must measure the value based on countries which have a slave market even today’s, such as in Arab countries]; Beir Hagoleh E.H. 78:2; Pesakim Uteshuvos 252:3

[6] Meiri Kesubos 52b; Opinion brought and negated in some Poskim ibid; See Shevet Halevi 5:137-4; Derech Emuna 8:77

[7] Radbaz 1:40 that so is the custom, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 252:5; Possible implication of Michaber E.H. 78:2; Pesakim Uteshuvos 252:3

[8] Mishneh Gittin 45a

[9] Michaber Y.D. 252:4; Rambam Matanos Aniyim 8:12

[10] The Gemara ibid records a story in which Levi Bar Darga redeemed his daughter from captivity for 12,000 gold Dinar, a huge sum of money, to try to prove like the first approach. However, this proof is later rejected being that it is possible that Levy did so without the consent of the sages. Hence, the matter remains inconclusive.

[11] Rashi Gittin ibid

[12] Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Gittin 4:66 that so is the custom; Kneses Yechezkal Y.D. 38 in his Limud Zechus approach that the Rif and Rosh did not give a conclusion in this matter and that so rules Maharam Milublin as a Limud Zechus; All Poskim who permit a relative to redeem on his own, as explained in E; See Ran Gittin 22b

[13] Michaber 252:4 “In order so the enemies are not motivated to continue the kidnappings”; Rambam Matanos Aniyim 8:12; Rashba Gittin 45a; Ran Gittin 22b that so is implied from Rambam and from Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel in Gittin ibid; Implication of Kesubos 52a as rules Rav Shimon Ben Gamliel; Meiri Beis Habechira Gittin 45a; All Poskim who prohibit a relative to redeem even on his own, as explained in E;  See Kneses Yechezkal Y.D. 38; Radbaz 1:40; See Ran Gittin 22b

[14] As so rules the Shulchan Aruch and most Poskim

[15] Shach 252:4 in name of Bach 252; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Gittin 4:66 and Radbaz ibid, brought next; Maharam Milublin  ibid and Kneses Yechezkal ibid that one may choose to follow the first approach;

[16] Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Gittin 4:66; Radbaz 1:40 [and 498] that the widespread custom is to be lenient today to redeem for more than the value, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 252:5

[17] The reason: The custom of the many communities, including Turkey and countries near it, is to redeem the captives for more than their value. The allowance of this Is based on the following factors: 1) the community agrees to compromise on the financial burden that it will cause them and hence have the right to dismiss the institution. 2) the Jewish people are a minority in exile and we must prevent the death of any remaining Jew. 3) the captors force the Jewish captives to transgress the Jewish religion and force them to work on Shabbos for no need. 4) if we do not redeem them they will be killed, and in a case of Pikuach Nefesh, the sages never enacted their decree. [Rashal ibid] Alternatively, the reason is because: 1) there are also Gentile captives which are  redeemed for the same amount. 2) perhaps the captive is a Torah sage. 3) 1) the community agrees and is even happy to compromise on the financial burden that it will cause them and hence have the right to dismiss the institution. [Radbaz ibid]