Q&A: Certainty and Uncertainty in the Issue of the Hostages
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Certainty and Uncertainty in the Issue of the Hostages
Question
Is the reason we don’t say that when one side is certain and the other is uncertain, certainty takes precedence, because it is certain that more people will die in the future, or is it simply that a state is not run according to Talmudic rules?
Answer
The rule of certainty versus uncertainty is not relevant here at all. That is a rule dealing with a claimant and a respondent in a legal dispute. What you probably mean is: an uncertainty does not override a certainty.
- If the rule is not logical, then there is no reason to use it. So what if it appears in the Talmud? And if it is logical, then ask why it isn’t used, regardless of the question whether Talmudic rules are applied in running a state.
- Obviously this rule does carry some weight, and therefore there is room to prefer freeing hostages now over uncertain future risks. But there are many other considerations here as well, such as the implications for future threats, and leaving current threats in place against the border communities and against Israel in general.
- To take one rule and ask why it is not being applied—that is not the right way to frame it. It is being applied, but along with it many other considerations are also being weighed.
The rule that captives are not redeemed for more than their value is based on the understanding that this will happen again and again in the future. That is, of course, still an uncertainty, since we do not know the future; we can only estimate.
So the whole question here is null and void from the outset. And as my predecessor wrote, there is a range of considerations that must be weighed very carefully.