At all costs?

Can you trade a terrorist with blood on his hands for a hostage with none? Is there a price too high to pay, and what if the terrorist himself has already killed the family of that very same hostage?

These are questions that were very much on our minds these past few weeks as a hostage deal seemed to take form with a very steep price. Far be it for me to say, but I personally am happy no such deal was made; any deal for that matter would seem to play into the hands of the dealmaker, the same way the dealer always has the upper hand in craps, the house edge. 

What then would it be like, or could it be like to make a deal with the likes of Sinwar, himself freed in the Gilad Shalit deal? Tractate Gittin (45.) teaches that "prisoners should not be freed for more than their going price," the reason given being "tikun ha'olam." This would connote that there seems to be a price that is too much. Warren Buffett famously never agreed to raise his price after any offer; likewise, before purchasing a company, he would first review their balance sheets, decide on the price it should fetch, and only then ask for the price the seller was asking; Trump, in contradistinction, went bankrupt for seeking pomp and circumstance more than intrinsic value, and overpaying for New York real estate, seeking glamour over the best interest of his shareholders. 

What then is a fair price for one's son, daughter, wife, or husband? The world over, one would say, yet thankfully we have another talmudic teaching that says that one can not place more value on one life over another: "What makes your blood any redder than your friend's?"

That is certainly a consideration here. Freeing terrorists will certainly precipitate the killing of more Jews; the question is "When?" and "Under what circumstances?" and whether the national morale requires such a thing to be able to persist in fighting and ultimately save more lives. 

I recall vividly in a similar episode the angst that my grandfather, Rabbi Orenstein Z"L felt when, as a sign of brotherly love and humanity, the Muslim community wanted to build a mosque at the site of 9/11. My grandfather was irate, quoting the verse:

"When one party schemes against another and kills through treachery, you shall take that person from My very altar to be put to death."

The altar was a place of peace; one could seek protection from the mizbeach, the holy altar; likewise, even if a sacrifice was errantly placed on the altar, and was not fit for sacrifice, once placed on it, the altar's redemptive powers led the sacrifice to not be removed; once an animal, even a blemished one was placed on the altar, it would not be removed. 

Thus, a murderer could cling to the buttresses of the altar - but the Torah warns, if he killed willfully, remove him forcibly, for the altar has no power to redeem willful, premeditated crime. 

Though it is a world of difference, I would argue that the same logic applies here; to sanctify life, one cannot denigrate it, and the cost that would be too much is the one that cheapens the very lives of the ones you are saving by deflecting the gravity of the acts of the murderous perpetrators.