1. Ya'akov, Avrahamben, Yehudei Bavel mi-SofTequfat ha-Ge 'onim 'ad Yameinu (Jerusalem, 1965), p.143.Google Scholar

2. It should be noted, however, that the famed R.Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad, Rav Pe'alim(Jerusalem, 1905), vol.3, Yoreh De'ah,no.30, was aware that the idea had no source.

3. It is surprising that Sidney Goldstein, in his recent book Suicide in Rabbinic Literature(Hoboken, 1989), makes no mention of this notion.

4. See also Avot de-Rabbi Nathan,chap.36, which discusses those who lose their portion in the world-to-come.There is no mention here of suicide.

5. See R.Jacob Emden's glosses on this text.Emden accepts the idea that suicides have no portion in the world-to-come and therefore struggles, unsuccessfully in his own opinion, to explain this passage.See also R.Ezekiel Sirkin, Binyan Yehezqel(Warsaw, 1861), ad loc.

6. EikhahRabbah1:51.

7. Commentary, ad loc.(found in the Vilna edition of Midrash Rabbah).

8. Yad ha-Melekh(Lemberg, 1826), last page of appendix.With this comment Landau was correcting the contrary view expressed in his note to Hilkhot Avel1:11

9. See Sanhedrin104b-105a.

10. S., Buber, ed., Midrash Sekhel Tov (Tel Aviv, n.d.), vol.1, p.283.Google Scholar

11. R.Joseph, Kafah, ed., Ma'or ha-Afelah (Jerusalem, 1957), p.68.See also R.Joel's twelfth-century Hebrew translation of Kalila wa Dinma,ed.Joseph Derenbourg (Paris, 1881), pp.12 and 176, where the idea also appears.Since this is merely a translation, it obviously does not reflect Jewish teaching.However, it does show that even at this early date Jews were aware of the notion we are considering.(Incidentally, as far back as R.Hai Gaon Jews were acquainted with Kalila wa Dimna;see A.Harkavy, ed., Teshuvot ha-Geonim[Berlin, 1887], no.362, and Harkavy's note on p.371.)Google Scholar

12. This influence was not merely in the realm of ideas; seeWieder, Naphtali, Hashpa'ot Islamyyot 'al ha-Pulhan ha-Yehudi (Oxford, 1947); Boaz Cohen, Quntres ha-Teshuvot(Budapest, 1930), p.15, n.1.Google Scholar

13. See M.Havatzelet in Sinai108 (1991): 189, n.10, who points to Arabic-Islamic mythology.Cf.also Ma'or ha-Afelah,p.91, n.2.

14. Khan, Muhammad Muhsin, The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari (Ankara, 1981), pp.251–252.Google Scholar

15. Muslim ibn al Hajjaj al-Qushayri, as-Sahih(Bulaq, 1873), Kitab al-Iman,no.199.

16. Ibid., no.206.

17. See the sources listed inWensinck, A.J., A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition (Leiden, 1971), p.222.See also Franz Rosenthal, “On Suicide in Islam,“ Journal of the American Oriental Society65 (1945): 239–259.Rosenthal points out that certain orthodox Muslims, who denied the possibility of eternal punishment, regarded such utterances in the hadithliterature as Mutazilite falsifications.Google Scholar

18. Pesah le-Hashem(Constantinople, 1560), introduction.Regarding this book see Abraham Yaari in Qiryat Sefer9 (1932): 388–393, where the introduction is reprinted.Google Scholar

19. (Izmir, 1736), s.v.heleq le-'olam ha-ba.See also his Shevet Mussar(Jerusalem, 1989), p.295, where this idea also appears and is attributed to the Azharot ha-Qodesh(which I have not been able to track down).Both R.Samuel Jaffe Ashkenazi (16th cent.), Yefe To'ar(Venice, 1597), to Bereshit Rabbah65:22, and R.Jacob Reischer (ca.1670–1733), Shevut Ya'akov(Lemberg, 1861), vol.2, no.I l l, could be read as implying that a suicide has no heavenly portion, but this is not altogether certain.

20. This view, which in fact denies eternal punishment for anysinners, including those described in the Mishnah as having lost their portion in the world-to-come, is based on kabbalistic sources.See the discussion in Alexander Altmann, “Eternality of Punishment: A Theological Controversy within the Amsterdam Rabbinate in the Thirties of the Seventeenth Century,“ Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research40 (1972): 1–88.(Incidentally, Altmann was unaware that some of the texts he published had earlier appeared in Ha-Md'or[Tishrei-Kislev 5696]: 9–18.)

21. Penei Yehoshu'a(Jerusalem, 1970), to Bava Metzi'a59a.

22. See also R.Solomon Kluger, Ha-'Elef Lekha Shlomo(Bilgoray, 1931), Yoreh De'ah,no.321.

23. Be*er ha-Mayim(Salonika, 1836), Yoreh De'ah,no.54, p.33a: “And that which they said, that we do not perform any funeral rites or mourn for him, this is not because he has removed himself from the Jewish people, and not because he has no share in the world-to-come, etc., God forbid to say this, for he is part of the Jewish people, as the Mishnah explicitly teaches figure whose life and work remain virtually unknown, see Solomon Rosanes, Qorot Ha-Yehudim be-Turqiyyah u-ve-Artzot ha-Qedem(Jerusalem, 1945), pp.87–91.See also R.Israel Moses Hazzan, Kerakh shel Romi(Livorno, 1876), no.14, who presents a very liberal view of suicide and its halakhic consequences.His responsum is actually the most comprehensive treatment of the subject in the entire responsa literature, but is not mentioned in Goldstein's book.

24. Lehem Shamayim(n.p., n.d.), vol.2, p.38a.Perhaps one cannot totally dismiss the possibility that Emden saw a manuscript of Semahotwith this passage; I say this because it is known that our text of Semahotis very different, and probably even smaller, than the text which was known to medieval authorities.See, e.g., Hiddushei Hagahotin the standard editions of the Tur, Yoreh De'ah335, n.2, who points out that many of the passages from Semahotcited in references by early authorities do not appear in our texts.Still, since no one else mentions having seen our saying in Semahot,it seems extremely doubtful that such a version ever existed.

25. Divrei Sha'ul: HiddusheCAggadot(Lemberg, 1877), to Ketubot103b.

26. Yad ha-Melekh, HilkhofAvel1:11.

27. Tiferet Yisra'elto Sanhedrin10:2.

28. 'EtanAryeh(Jerusalem, 1976), no.20.

29. There is no printing of Trani's novellae that contains the passage in question.

30. See Ramatayim Tzofimto Tanna de-Vei *Eliyahu(Warsaw, 1881), pp.163–164.The title page says that this book was written by R.Samuel of Sieniawa.However, in Ha-Peles3 (1903): 47, R.Joseph Levenstein admits that he wrote the book but due to a “hidden reason“ did not publicize his authorship.I thank R.Shmuel Ashkenazi for calling this to my attention.31.R.Simha Bunim's “passage“ is based on Tanna de-Vei 'Eliyahu,chap.14, which reads: “Whoever spurns the good life in the world, it is a bad omen for him.“

32. It should also be noted that some rabbis who do not quote the maxim have clearly been influenced by the idea it expresses.An example is R.Judah Mecklenburg, who writes that one who commits suicide suffers a punishment worse than karetin that his soul is completely destroyed for eternity; see his Ha-Qetav ve-ha-Qabbalah(Jerusalem, 1969), to Genesis 9:5.Needless to say, there is no support for this view in classical rabbinic sources

33. Teshuvah me-'Ahavah(Prague, 1820), vol.3, no.409.See also Yad ha-Melekh, Hilkhot 'Avel1:11, which also sees this passage as a “hint“ that one who commits suicide loses his share in the world-to-come.

34. Cf.also R.Ovadia Yosef, Yabi'a 'Omer(Jerusalem, 1986), vol.6, p.261.

35. See e.g., Sirkin, loc.cit.; R.Yehiel Michal Epstein, 'Arukh ha-Shulhan (New York, 1961), Yoreh De'ah116:1 and 345:1; R.Barukh Epstein, Tosefet Berakhah(Pinsk, 1937) to Genesis 9:5; R.Hillel Posek, Hillel Omer(Tel Aviv, 1956), Yoreh De'ah,no.210; R.Jekuthiel Judah Greenwald, Kol Bo 'al 'Avelut(New York, 1956), p.318; R.Judah Leib Graubart, Havalim ba-Ne'imim(Jerusalem, 1975), vol.3, no.108; R.Moshe Blau, Mishnat Moshe(Bnei Brak, 1989), p.240; David Tamar in Areshet 6(1981): 258–259.See, however, the rejection of this view by Manasseh, Be'er ha-Mayim,p.33a.Google Scholar

36. See also Tiferet Yisraelto Sanhedrin10:2.

37. See e.g.Hazzan, Kerakh shel Romi,pp.52b ff.; R.Moses Klein, Va-Yakhel Moshe(Grosswardein, 1934), p.32, n.1; R.Ishmael ha-Kohen, Zera 'Emet(Reggio, [1815]), vol.3, no.157; R.Raphael Asher Covo, Sha'ar 'Asher(Salonika, 1877), Yoreh De'ah,no.16; R.Hiyya Pontremoli, Tzapihit bi-Devash(Salonika, 1848), no.67; R.Hayyim Palache, Hayyim be-Yad(Izmir, 1873), no.110; R.Hayyim Hezekiah Medini, Sedei Hemed(New York, 1962), vol.4, ma'arekhet ^avelut,no.118.(Many more sources could easily be added to this list.) As R Rahamim Joseph Franco points out, Sha'arei Rahamim(Jerusalem, 1902), vol.2, Yoreh De'ah,no.32, one should assume that even those authorities who are strict and refuse to allow normal mourning and funeral rites in this case, nevertheless agree that as far as God is concerned the repentance is valid (this is actually stated explicitly by Pontremoli, Tzapihit bi-Devash,p.167b, one of those who does rule fairly stringently).R.Moses Rivkin, Tiferet Tziyyon(New York, 1975), p.262, overlooks all of this when he declares that a suicide's repentance is of no value in securing him a share in the world-to-come.

38. Divrei Sha'ul(Jerusalem, 1973) to Yoreh De'ah,p.269.

39. Even Yeqarah(Lemberg, 1894), vol.1, Yoreh De'ah,no.56.See also Posek, Hillel Omer,loc.cit.

40. Sanhedrin10:2.

41. Ibid., 102b.

42. Darkei Shalom(Vienna, 1932), vol.1, no.41.See also R.Moshe Yonah Zweig, ^Ohel Moshe(Jerusalem, 1949), section Hat* Evel,p.17; and R.Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer(Jerusalem, 1985), vol.5, section ''Even Ya'aqov,p.2.

43.

44. Others simply assert, without pointing to any particular text, that suicide is the equivalent of murder.This in turn leads to extremely negative judgments.See, e.g., R.Abraham Danzig, Hokhmat Adam(Jerusalem, 1966), 156:1; R.Solomon Ganzfried, Kitzur Shulhan Arukh(Jerusalem, 1972), 101:1; and Klein, Va-Yakhel Moshe,p.32a.All these writers agree that “there is no greater sinner than one who commits suicide.“ The characterization of suicide as murder is actually quite early, and is found in Pesikta Rabbati,ed.M.Friedman (Vienna, 1860), chap.24, as well as Kirkisani.SeeNemoy, Leon, “A Tenth Century Disquisition on Suicide According to Old Testament Law,“ Journal of Biblical Literature 57 (1938): 411–420.See also Solomon ben Abraham Parhon, Mahberet ha-Arukh(Pressburg, 1844), s.v.haser;Saul Lieberman, Hilkhot ha-Yerushalmi(New York, 1948), p.21, note n; R.Menahem Kasher, Torah Shelemah(New York, 1955), vol.16, p.101, n.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. Be'er ha-Mayim,p.33a.It would require another article to discuss the many ingenious answers offered in the attempt to find a source for Maimonides' claim that murderers have no share in the world-to-come.Suffice it to say, however, that this is not a difficult problem.Although KesefMishnahto Hilkhot Teshuvah3:5 states that he does not know where Maimonides derived this notion, he overlooked the fact that Maimonides himself provides the source.In his Commentary to Avot1:16, Maimonides quotes the Tosefta as saying: “For three things man is punished in this world and has no share in the world-to-come.“ One of the three things listed is murder.Many commentators have pointed out that there is no such Tosefta, although Tosefta Pe'ah1:2 is very similar.In fact, there is no doubt that Maimonides was referring to Pe'ah1:2, and his version is actually recorded in a few different medieval sources; see Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshutah(New York, 1955), vol.1, p.126.Still, one must question Lieberman's suggestion that these sources simply copied the Tosefta as it appeared in Maimonides without necessarily having such a reading in their own Tosefta texts.I say this since Sefer Mitzyot Gadol,negative commandment no.9, quotes the variant Tosefta reading as also appearing in the Jerusalem Talmud; a point which is not noted by Maimonides.(It is worth noting that R.Jonah Gerondi, Sha'arei Teshuvah[Jerusalem, 1967] 3:141, is explicit that murderers do have a share in the world-to-come.)

46. Qeli Hemdah(Piotrkow, 1927), vol.1, p.8b.Maimonides' closing words present a difficulty according to this interpretation, for how could there ever be capital punishment at the hands of the court in the case of a suicide? Plotzki is cognizant of this problem and cleverly attempts to solve it.

47. Avodat Avodah(Brooklyn, 1962), p.38a, and Ha-'Elef Lekha Shlomo,loc.cit.

48. Yehudah Ya'aleh(Lemberg, 1873), Yoreh De'ah,no.355.In this responsum Aszod asserts that there is no source for our maxim.However, in a note appended to the responsum, Aszod's son claims that when questioned, his father pointed to the text in Avodah Zarah.Cf.R.Isaac Herzog, Pesaqim u-Khetavim(Jerusalem, 1990), vol.5, no.120, who also points to Avodah Zarah18a but for a different reason.

49. Berakhot61a.Rashi explains that the Talmud is dealing with a married woman who will lift up her dress in order to cross the river.

50. Ha-'Elef Lekha Shlomo,loc.cit.

51. Kluger, Tuv Ta'am ve-Da'at(New York, n.d.), Third Series, vol.2, no.202; R.Shalom Mordekhai Schwadron, She'elot u-Teshuvot Maharsham(Jerusalem, 1974), vol.6, no.123; R.Judah Grunfeld, Qol Yehudah(Jerusalem, 1984), p.36; R.Gershon Stern, Yalkut ha-Gershuni(Brooklyn, 1972), Quntres Aharon,p.2b; and Yosef, Yabi'a 'Omenp.262.See also R.Abraham Rosen, 'Etan 'Aryeh,no.20, who goes so far as to deny that Ahithophel even committed suicide! Because the halakhic restrictions regarding suicide only apply to those of sound mind, R.Zvi Hirsch Chajes was able to argue that a suicide's having no share in the world-to-come only applies to one whose suicide is an act of rebellion against God.However, one who is carried away by the whim of a moment is not condemned to eternal perdition.It is this distinction which enables Chajes to explain why Ahithophel's suicide did not cause the loss of his portion in the world-to-come.See Kol Kitvei Maharatz Chajes(Jerusalem, 1958), vol.2, pp.505–506.

52. Franco, Sha'arei Rahamim,loc.cit.Nevertheless, at the end of his responsum Franco expresses some doubt as to whether a sucide is, in fact, eternally excluded from Heaven.Cf.also R.Abraham Meir Israel, Yalqut ha-Me'iri(Brooklyn, 1981), to Sanhedrin90a.

53. Tuv Ta'am ve-Da'at(New York, n.d.).First Series, no.282.

54. Incidentally, it is with regard to Ahithophel and his punishment that one can perhaps show that Besamim Rosh(Berlin, 1793), no.345, is a late forgery.(This responsum was excised when Besamim Roshwas printed for the second time in Cracow in 1881.It is said that the Hasidic leader R.Ezekiel Halberstamm was responsible for this; see Z.Y.Abramowitz, “Besamim Roshbe-Aspaqlaryah Hasidit,“ Tagim3–4 [Elul, 5732]: 58.) The authenticity of this responsum has long been regarded as questionable; however, the reason for this has to do with its radical conclusions rather than internal evidence.It is with regard to the latter that I detect the forgery, for in this responsum “R.Asher“ feels constrained to stress that Ahithophel was denied Paradise, not because he committed suicide, but because he rebelled against David.Now when it is remembered that none of the rishonimmention anything about Ahithophel being denied his portion in the world-to-come because of his committing suicide, it is certainly possible that Besamim Roshis responding to eighteenth-century conceptions of the fate of the suicide.The reason none of the rishonimconnect Ahithophel's punishment with his suicide is simply that they were unaware of the notion we have been considering; a notion which Besamim Roshwas clearly aware of.

55. Jewish War111:8.Even among the most traditional rabbis Josephus (or more precisely Yossipon) has often been accepted as a reliable source of Jewish history and belief when he does not contradict the Talmud; see R.David Gans, Tzemah David(Warsaw, 1859), p.18a, and R.Jehiel Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot(Warsaw, 1878), p.79a.Jekuthiel Judah Greenwald, Toledot ha-Kohanim ha-Gedolim(New York, 1933), p.5 (see also Kol Bo 'al ^Avelut,loc.cit.), has a passage which is totally inexplicable.He claims that Josephus explicitly states that suicides are denied a portion in the world-to-come.In support of this he quotes the passage in Josephus we have referred to, copying from Kalman Schulman's Hebrew translation, Sefer Milhamot ha-Yehudim im ha-Roma'im(Vilna, 1863), vol.2, pp.6–7.However, in this quotation he adds the following sentence, which appears to be his own creation: Yosippon, chap.71, does say that a suicide has no portion in the world-to-come, but as Yitzhak Baer has already shown, Yossipon's views regarding suicide are based on non-Jewish sources, in particular Plato, Cicero, and Macrobius; see his “Sefer Yosippon ha-Ivri,“ in Baer et al., eds., Sefer Dinaburg(Jerusalem, 1949), pp.195–197.(However, Baer was unaware of Franz Cumont's convincing proofs that Macrobius never actually saw Plato's Phaedo;see his “Comment Plotin detourna Porphyre du suicide,“ Revue des itudes grecques32 [1919]: 113–120.)

56. Bava Qamma91b.

57. Torah Temimah(New York, 1928), to Genesis 9:5; idem, Tosefet Berakhahto Genesis 9:5.See also the similar explanations of R.Solomon Zvi Schick, Torah Shelemah(Satmar, 1909), vol.1, pp.144a-144b, and R.Meir Murtziano, Beit MeHr(Jerusalem, 1988), pp.65–66.Cf.A.Perls, “Der Selbstmord nach der Halacha,“ Monatsschrift fur Geschichle und Wissenschaft des Judentums55 (1911): 289.

58. Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer,loc.cit.

59. Lieberman, Hilkhot ha-Yerushalmi,p.21 n.23, also says that the notion we are considering is reflected in various midrashim.He does not specify which ones he has in mind, and none of the numerous rabbinic texts which discuss our problem point to a specific midrash as a source.

60. Avot4:17.

61. Dudcfei ha-Sadeh(Seini, 1929), no.39.

62. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions,translated by Samuel Rosenblatt (New Haven, 1948), p.387.See also the passage from Bahya Ibn Paquda cited by Nathanson, Divrei Sha'ulto Yoreh De'ah,p.269.

63. Hillel Omer,loc.cit.

64. Gesher ha-Hayyim(Jerusalem, 1960), vol.1, p.270.See also Rosen, Etan 'Aryeh,no.113.

65. Divrei Sha'ul: Hiddushei Aggadot,loc.cit.

66. Kol Kitvei Maharatz Chajes,p.942.

67. Kol Bo 'al 'Avelut,loc.cit.See also Yad ha-Melekh, Hilkhot Avel1:11; R.Ephraim Zalman Margulies, Beit 'Efraim(Warsaw, 1883), Yoreh De'ah,no.76; and Herzog, Pesaqim u-Khetavim,loc.cit.

68. Nitzutzei Zoharin Reuven Margaliot, ed., Zohar(Jerusalem, 1964), vol.3, p.127a, n.9; idem, Margaliyot ha-Yam(Jerusalem, 1977) to Sanhedrin90a, n.21.See also R.Abraham Sperling, Ta'amei ha-Minhagim(Jerusalem, 1957), pp.464–465; Epstein, Tosefet Berakhahto Genesis 9:5.

69. See R.Moses Cordovero's comments on this passage in his Or Yaqar(Jerusalem, 1985), vol.13, p.252.He states explicitly that Samson's punishment was not due to his committing suicide.

70.

71. See Arakhin15b, Yerushalmi Pe'ah1:1, and Tosefta Pe'ah1:2, where lashon harais regarded as the equivalent of idolatry, murder, and adultery.

72. She'elot u-Teshuvot Mahari ha-Cohen(Lemberg, 1875), Yoreh De'ah,no.47.This view is rejected by R.Jeremiah Menahem Cohen, Ve-Herim ha-Kohen(Jerusalem, 1981), no.63, who argues that a brazen Sabbath violator is, in fact, worse than a suicide.For other halakhic decisions which use our maxim, see R.Eliezer Deutsch, Peri ha-Sadeh(Paks, 1913), vol.3, no.52, and R.Aaron Lewin, Avnei Hefelz(Munich, 1948), no.38.

73. Hatam Sofer(Jerusalem, 1970), Yoreh De'ah,no 326; 'Even ha-'Ezer,vol.1, no.69.

74. See R.Aaron Azriel, Kapei 'Aharon(Jerusalem, 1886), vol.2, Hilkhot 'Avelut,no.16, who defends the practice of not saying Qaddishfor a suicide.

75. Interestingly, Sofer regards suicide as being the equivalent of murder, thus showing that he does not accept Maimonides' judgment about the fate of the murderer.In fact he is explicit that a murderer achieves repentance through his death.However, as he points out, suicide is somewhat different, for it is the crime itself which brings death.See also his comments in Torat Moshe(Brooklyn, 1958), vol.1, pp.19b-20a, and the responsum of his grandson, R.Simhah Bunim Sofer, Shevet Sofer(Jerusalem, 1974), Yoreh De'ah,no.105.

76. Sofer appears to be the first to refer to the notion of not saying Qaddishfor a suicide.The assertion of Azriel, Kapei ''Aharon,vol.2, p.66a, and Hazzan, Kerakh shel Romi,p.52b, that this practice is already attested to by R.Jacob Castro (1528–1610), Erekh Lehem(Constantinople, 1718), Yoreh De'ah345, is mistaken, as Castro is only referring to the Qaddishwhich is said after the burial.Regarding this latter point see Covo, Sha'arAsher,loc.cit (at the end of the responsum).

77. See Zvi Karl, Ha-Qaddish(Lvov, 1935), pp.80 ff.; David de Sola Pool, The Kaddish(New York, 1964), pp.101–106; Solomon B.Freehof, “Ceremonial Creativity Among the Ashkenazim,“ in Joseph Gutmann, ed., Beauty in Holiness(New York, 1970), p.489.Joseph Gutmann claims that this notion has a Christian origin.As he puts it, the mourner's Qaddish“has its roots in the Requiem Mass or Mass for the dead celebrated in the Church so that through prayer and sacrifice the living can aid the souls in purgatory and help them attain eternal glory.“ See his “Christian Influences on Jewish Customs,“ in Leon Klenicki and Gabe Huck, eds., Spirituality and Prayer: Jewish and Christian Understandings(New York, 1983), p.134.I quote this only for its interesting theory.In truth, however, Gutmann's view is completely unfounded.

78. Azriel, loc.cit., explains the matter simply: since we do not mourn for a suicide, Qaddish,which is part of the mourning process, is omitted.This reason is also very logical and may have played a part in the popularization of the notion that one does not say Qaddishfor a suicide.

79. Hilkhot'AvellM.

80. YorehDe'ah345:1.

81. See alsoKlein, R.Abraham Zvi, Be'erot 'Avraham (Tyrnau, 1928), no.42: “And I said that it is permissible to bury him in the cemetery and give him full funeral rites, for he is not considered a suicide, since the laws which appear in theSḥulhan Arukh were only said with regard to one who died immediately, in which case he has no share in the world-to-comebecause he died with his sin upon him and did not repent“ (emphasis added).There is a slight difference in emphasis between Falkon and Klein.According to Falkon, the laws directed against the suicide are the proof that the rabbis regarded him as losing his share in Paradise.According to Klein, the fact that a suicide has no portion in the world-to-come is actually what:aused the rabbis to legislate punitive measures against those who killed themselves.Google Scholar