In shul this past week, the recent debate in the pages of the Five Towns Jewish Times between Rabbi Aryeh Zev Ginzberg and Ze’ev Gold became the subject of discussion.  Ze’ev Gold posed the question as to whether the Rubashkin case was really Pidyon Shvuyim or not.  Rabbi Ginzberg had received a ruling from Rav Chaim Kaniefsky Shlita that, indeed, it was full and complete Pidyon Shvuyim.

If so, asked Mr. Gold, why didn’t Rabbi Ginsburg’s shul empty out their Shul building fund?  Rabbi Ginzberg was slightly evasive in his response but did refer Mr. Gold to the ruling of the Aruch haShulchan.  Mr. Gold quoted Rabbonim who ruled that it is not real full-fledged Pidyon Shvuyim.  Rabbi Ginzberg repeated unequivocally that it was complete Pidyon Shvuyim.

What is going on here?

Let’s first look at the ruling of the Aruch haShulchan that Rabbi Ginzberg cited in response to Mr. Gold but did not quote.  The paragraph is in Rav Yechiel Michel Epstein’s (1829-1908) comments to the 252^nd chapter of Yore Deah, in the laws of Tzedaka.

Rav Epstein writes (252:1), “And all this was in earlier times, and even nowadays in far flung wildernesses such as Asia and Africa, where bandits fall upon travelers and take them into captivity to the point where it is necessary to redeem them with large sums of money, as is known from the caravans that travel in the western wilderness.”

It seems that the Aruch haShulchan is suggesting that the full blown Pidyon Shvuyim and all its associated Halachos are pretty much a thing of the past and no longer applicable in the Aruch haShulchan’s time.

There are three possible reactions that one can have to this Aruch haShulchan.

Possibility A – One can argue and disagree with his position by saying,  “the Aruch haShulchan writes that nowadays,  Jews in prison do not constitute Pidyon Shvuyim – but we disagree.  There is certain Pidyon Shvuyim here.”

Possibility B – One can say, “No, the Aruch HaShulchan is ruling that there is certainly a Pidyon Shvuyim here – it is just that he is positing a lower level Pidyon Shvuyim – a Pidyon Shvuyim Type B, so to speak.  Granted it does not have all the Halachos of the full Pidyon Shvuyim in the Rambam and in the Gemorah, but there is certainly a Pidyon Shvuyim here.”

Possibility C – One can say, “The Aruch haShulchan is certainly ruling that there is no Pidyon Shvuyim here – even a low level Type B form.  However, there is certainly an Inyan to help out here.”

It seems to this author that the Rabbis whom Mr. Gold quotes are proponents of possibility C.  It seems also that Rabbi Ginzberg is proposing possibility B.  This is why Rabbi Ginzberg’s Shul has not cleared its building fund account to help Mr. Rubashkin.

What was the position of Rav Chaim Kaniefsky Shlita?  It is unclear whether he is a proponent of Position A or Position B. Rabbi Ginzberg responded to Mr. Gold’s question with a veiled hint that he personally is not emptying the account because he personally holds of position B.  But it is not clear that Rav Chaim Shlita is of the same opinion.

All this brings up another question.   If, indeed, Rabbi Kaniefsky was a proponent of position A, would there be an obligation to empty out a Shul building fund?

It seems to this author that there are two other issues at play here as well.  There is the issue of guilt and there is the issue of safety.  We will begin with the issue of guilt.

There is a halachic debate between the Radbaz (commentary on Rambam Matanos Aniyim 4:13) and the Yam Shel Shlomo (Gittin 4:72) whether the laws of Pidyon Shvuyim apply to someone who actually stole money under circumstances where there is extraordinary punishment.  The Yam Shel Shlomo writes clearly that the halachos of Pidyon Shvuyim do not apply to someone guilty of actually stealing money – even if the person’s life is at stake.  The Radbaz disagrees completely and writes that it certainly does apply.  It is clear, however, that even the Yam Shel Shlomo would agree that, while it may not be considered Pidyon Shvuyim, there is still an Inyan to save him.

Which position has become normative Psak halacha – that of the Yam Shel Shlomo or that of the Radbaz?  This too is unclear as the Poskim in the past have not issued a definitive ruling.  The Jewish people, however, are rachmanim bnei rachmanim and have always responded generously to appeals  - even if the person may be guilty.

From a halachic standpoint, therefore, we may talk about Safek Pidyon Shuyim which, unless there are other important factors or issues, we should treat no differently than unequivocal Pidyon Shvuyim.

Let us now move on to the issue of safety.  If the person is innocent but issues of safety come into play – even if one is a proponent of Possibility B or C in the Aruch HaShulchan – then real Pidyon Shvuyim comes back into play.  The holocaust itself, and our opportunities to save Jewish life at certain key times, is a prime example of this.

To examine the issues of safety, however, we need to look at the particular health and age of the person in question as well as the type of people in the particular prison under discussion.  For example, a few years ago, an elderly man with health issues was sentenced to prison.  There is no question that even though he was in Otisville – prison for him was a certain death sentence.  The medical care in the U.S. Federal Prison System is abysmal and he died shortly after he began to serve time.  It is clear that there was no lower level Pidyon Shvuyim Type B for this person.  Rather, that case fell into the Yam Shel Shlomo/Radbaz debate.

In most of our state prisons, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 1 in 400 prisoners die each year while in custody.  These numbers seem pretty bizarre because the crude death rate in the United States seems to be higher than that, hovering at about 1 in 250.  According to these figures, one can certainly understand the Aruch haShulchan’s differentiation between the past and present.

What would the halachic differences be whether we categorize it as Possibility A Pidyon Shuyim or Possibility B or C?  The Rambam in the Laws of Tzedaka (8:10) writes that Pidyon Shvuyim beats supporting the poor and clothing the poor because a real case of Pidyon Shvuyim includes the hungry, the thirsty, and the unclothed.  Their lives are also in danger.

The Rambam lists eight verses that one violates if one ignores rendering assistance in these cases: 1] Lo saametz es Levavcha – Do not tighten your heart(Dvarim 15:7) 2] veLo Sikpotz es yadcha – Nor shall you tighten your hand (Dvarim 15:7) 3] Lo saamod al dam rayacha – Do not stand idly by your brother’s blood (VaYikra 19:16) 4] Lo yirdeno beferech leainecha – Do not let him go down in excessive labor in front of your eyes  (Vayikra 25:53)  5] Pasoach tiftach es yadcha lo You shall surely open your hand for him (Dvarim 15:8) 6] Vechai achicha imach – And your brother shall live with you (Vayikra 25:36) 7] Veahavta lerayacha kamocha –love your friend as yourself  (Vayikra 19:18) 8] Hatzel lakuchim lemavais – Save those taken toward their death (Mishlei 24:11)

[As an aside, in regard to Mitzvah #2, the Ibn Ezra and Rabbeinu Bachya both write that one are obligated to speak nice things to his heart as well.  Indeed, Rabbeinu Bachya cites the Gemorah in Bava Basra 9b that placating and comforting him with words is greater than them all.  This being the case, it would seem that there might be an obligation to write an encouraging note or letter to SMR.]

It seems clear that even if it is not full Pikuach Nefesh, many of the above eight Mitzvos certainly apply as well.

The author may be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com