The Soleimani Assassination:  A Halachic Analysis

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5TJT.com

It is known as the MQ-9 Reaper Multi-Purpose Drone, and it is the deadliest unmanned aerial vehicle in the sky.  The cost of this unit is some sixty-four million dollars and it flies at about 300 miles per hour.  It was used by Air Force personnel hundreds or perhaps thousands of miles away to assassinate Major General Qassem Soleimani.  Soleimani was the leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force.  The drone unleashed two pairs of AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles.  Two of the missiles hit the lead car in Solomeini’s convoy, and the other pair hit his car, killing him instantly.

A week after President Donald Trump ordered this drone strike at Baghdad International Airport in Iraq,  the topic is still in the headlines.  In the United States, the debate has split along partisan lines.  Republicans are supportive of the assasination, and Democrats are aghast – thinking that it could lead to a third world war.  Iran sent 15 missiles against US bases in Iraq, and there is current debate as to whether Iran will stop here or continue.

Our theoretical question is, if the President was Jewish and followed halachic and Torah guidelines – what would be some of the underlying issues, assuming that General Qassem Soleimani would be determined to have been a rodef – halachically?

UNDERLYING THOUGHTS

The president announced that Soleimani was the world’s greatest terrorist and that further acts of terrorism were imminent.  The Democrats agreed to this first point.  There is a fascinating Chazon Ish (Kovetz Igros Vol. III #62) that is very applicable.

The Chazon Ish writes that “when embarking upon the saving of life or lives, one must have in mind that it is not that our actions are what effect the salvation.  Heaven forbid, that we think that it is “the strength and power of my hand” that has done this.  Rather, it is the decision to embark upon such action – the Mitzvah of saving the lives of others that has opened up the gates of mercy in Heaven that our actions will find fruit.”  Indeed, writes the Chazon Ish, “prayer on behalf of the victims, is more effective than the actual physical actions.  It is just that if one is in such a situation and has the ability to save the other but stops to pray – he is in violation of “lo saamod al dam rayacha – do not stand idly by your brother’s blood” – and it is as if he himself has spilled blood.”

PURITY OF INTENT

There is yet another aspect of one’s underlying thoughts that can be seen from an incident allegedly involving the Ramban.  [The word allegedly is used because there are stories concerning the Ramban that are unverified.] Regarding matters that go against one’s moral character – such as the carrying out of a death penalty – one must ensure that the motivations and intent are completely pure.  The Ramban once issued a ruling concerning someone whose actions had earned him capital punishment.  The shiach of the Ramban’s Beis Din was sent out to implement the punishment of moridin v’ain maalin.  After he implemented the ruling of the Beis Din, the messenger died.  The Ramban was asked why this had happened – since the messenger was fulfilling the ruling of the Beis Din regarding a Torah ruling.  The Ramban ruled that it is possible that the messenger had derived a pleasure in fulfilling this task – and that his intent was not pure and he would thus also be considered a murderer in heaven (cited in Sefer Ohr Chadash by Rabbi Chaim Ephraim Zaitchik p.979).  And so, according to this, the Air Force drone operator’s intent would matter, as well as the intent of the president.

ISSUING A WARNING

Another halachic issue is whether or not a warning would have to be issued before the drones are let loose.  The assassination occurred on January 3^rd, and a few days earlier, the President issued a tweet on Twitter.  It stated:

“Iran will be held fully responsible for lives lost, or damage incurred, at any of our facilities. They will pay a very BIG PRICE! This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!”

The SMaH (CM 425:3) indicates that although the idea of issuing a warning is discussed in halacha – this is not an absolute requirement, and b’dieved even without a warning – it would be permitted to kill a rodef.  The Bach, on the other hand, disagrees (425:3) and rules that the warning is a necessity.

The Mishne LaMelech (Chovel uMazik 8:8) writes that the requirement to warn is only for a third uninvolved party – the person being chased may kill him without warning.  In our case, we can assume that since American forces were being targeted – it would be considered the direct party being targeted and the Mishne LaMelech’s leniency would be applicable.  But even without the Mishne LaMelech, the president’s tweet would probably be considered a warning – even according to the Bach – notwithstanding the president’s words of “This is not a Warning.”  The president would not have carried out the drone attack on Iranian soil.

SAVING THE OPPRESSED – KNOWING THE REASONS

Although it is a little known fact, there is a halachic obligation to know the reasons for the Mitzvos that we perform.  This obligation is found in a number of sources (See Rambam, Hilchos Meilah 8:8; Moreh Nevuchim 3:31; Zohar, Parshas Yisro p. 93b; Rabbeinu Yonah Shaarei HaAvodah §54; Ibn Ezra, Yesod HaMoreh Shaar 8).

Assuming that the president’s motivation was to save those whom Solomeini was targeting, which is the Mitzvah of “Lehatzil hanirdaf” it is important to know the reason for this Mitzvah.

The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 600  Parshas Ki Saitzai) writes:  “Hashem created the world and desires that it be settled.  The settlement of the world exists with the notion of saving the weak from the hand of someone stronger than him.  Furthermore, the oppressed always has his eyes and heart directed toward Hashem to save him from his oppressor, as the verse (Koheles 3:15) states, “And Hashem shall seek the oppressed.”  In other words, the oppressed seeks out Hashem and beseeches Him, therefore, the Holy One Blessed be He commanded us to help him.”

BUT IS THERE AN OBLIGATION TO DO SO?

As mentioned earlier, there is still a partisan debate as to whether the president should have embarked upon this course of action or not.  Is a person obligated to place himself in possible jeopardy in order to save others from certain danger?  Rav Yoseph Karo, in his commentary to the Tur (CM 426) called the Beis Yoseph cites the Talmud Yerushalmi that a person is in fact obligated to enter possible danger in order to save his friend from certain danger.  And yet, Rav Karo does not mention this at all in his Shulchan Aruch!

The question is, why did Rav Karo leave it out of the Shulchan Aruch?  The SMaH (426:2) explains that since the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh and the Tur did not mention this Yerushalmi at all in their writings, Rav karo left it out of the final halacha.  The assumption is that the Yerushalmi is not lehalacha.  This would seem to fit well with the view of the Democrats that the President should not have assassinated Soleimani because of the possible danger of revenge on other Americans.

But wait.  What about the Republicans?  Do they have no leg to stand on?

THE EXTENSION OF THE AGUDAS EZOV

It seems that they do.  The Pischei Teshuvah (426:2) cites the author of the Agudas Ezov (Rav Moshe Ze’ev Margalios, the Av Beis Din of Tiktin and Bialostok) that the concept of “possible danger” must be weighed very carefully to determine whether or not it is truly likely or not.  He also writes that one should not be overly analytical in it, because of a second statement that Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav in the Gemorah in Bava Metziah 33a.

What is that statement?  Let’s first get some background. The Torah (Dvarim 15:4) tells us to be careful regarding Hashem’s mitzvah of Shmittah so that you not become poor.  This is interpreted to also mean that there is an admonition in the Torah to be careful regarding your own money.  It is also the suggested source of Rav Yehuda Amar Rav for the Mishna’s ruling that retrieving one’s own lost item has precedence over retrieving one’s father’s lost item (when both cannot be retrieved).  This was Rav yehudah Amar Rav’s first statement.

His second statement is that even though that is the halacha – that his own lost item has precedence over that of his father’s, “HaMekayem b’atzmo kach” one who conducts himself thus – to always be overly analytical and never perform kindness to others on account of his fear of becoming poor – will, in fact, end up poor and will need to be beholden to the community.

THE QUESTION ON THE EXTENSION

The Gemorah under discussion is strictly concerned with retaining one’s own wealth and money.  But who says that the Rabbi Margalios’ extension to human life is also true?  Perhaps the Democrats are correct and that when it comes to human life – we should be “overly cautious” and not take any risk whatsoever.  True, the Pischei Teshuva cites this Agudas Ezov – but that does not mean that we paskin like it.

It seems, that it is not just the Pischei Teshuvah, but the Mishna Brurah (329:19) cites this view as well.  At the end of the day, we must consider the lives of others as well – and although we must certainly be cautious regarding possible dangers – the Agudas Ezov’s view of not to be overly cautious seems to be the Mishna Brurah’s final conclusion as well.

The author can be reached at [email protected]