7 Suicide in the Jewish scriptures

The Jewish scriptures and the commentaries of the scriptures throughout history present a very complex approach toward suicide. There is a categorical prohibition against suicide, but also an obligation to submit to death when there is an external coercion to transgress Jewish laws that pertain to the essence of the faith. Talmudic sages have shown a psychological and empathic understanding of the suicidal state of mind, but they have harshly condemned suicide and punished it by omissions of certain religious rituals for the dead. Yet, Jewish law defines suicide in a very minimalistic way, so it is very rare that a death is defined as a suicide. Inherent in this approach is the attempt to avoid further suffering by the family, to show respect for the frailty of the human being, but at the same time, to condemn self-destructive behaviour.

The Jewish religious laws and ethics are based on several sources: the Old Testament or the Bible, which consists of the Torah, Prophets and Writings; the Talmud, which contains the commentaries on the Bible and deduction of written and oral laws from it; the Midrash, a homilitical literature consisting of legal and non-legal discourse on the Bible by means of tales and maxims of prominent sages; and the Shulchan Aruch, the final and authoritative codification of the rabbinic law, or the halacha, which was completed in the sixteenth century. The Shulchan Aruch also serves as the fountain of knowledge, and provides the principles that are applied to new situations. New problems and issues arise as a result of changing conditions, technological advances, etc. Some of the important halachic decisions have been summarized and recorded at times in special volumes, or as part of the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch. The halachic laws and opinions presented in this chapter are based upon the above-mentioned sources, and serve as the raw material from which Jewish attitudes towards suicide can be understood.

The Torah lists murder as one of the first of the ten commandments, thus sending a clear, severe, and unambiguous message about the taking of another person's life. The Torah also makes direct statements about the sanctity of life: ‘See I have put before you today life and death, blessing and curse, and you shall choose life so that you and your seed shall live’ (Deuteronomy 30:19). However, on the practical issue of suicide, the murder of the self, the Torah makes no direct reference to the topic. In fact, in the three sections of the Old Testament (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) there is no verb, noun, or adjective to denote suicide. The one singular reference to the prohibition of suicide is: ‘And surely your blood I will require at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man’ (Genesis 9:5). Talmudic sages later understood these words literally, i.e. as ‘your life blood’, and the prohibition of suicide is based on this verse.

Although suicide is prohibited, suicidal wishes are not stifled in the Bible, and are in fact mentioned in the text and addressed by God. These include Rebecca's exclamation, ‘I am weary of my life … what good should my life do to me’(Genesis 27:46); Moses' statement, ‘If thou deal thus with me, kill me’ (Numbers 11:14); Elijah' request, ‘and he requested for himself that he might die …and said it is enough, now O Lord take my life’ (Kings I, 19:4); Job's statement, ‘So that my soul chooseth strangling and death rather than these bones’ (Job 7:15); and Jonah, ‘Therefore now, O lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me for it is better for me to die than to live’ (Jonah 4:3–4). According to Kaplan and Schwartz (1993), in all the instances where people expressed a wish to die, there was no condemnation of the wish; rather God has implemented a suicide-preventative approach of warmth and sympathy.

The first documentation of suicide in the prophets is the one committed by Avimelech in the book of Judges. Avimelech was one of the most brutal rulers (Judges) of Israel. During a battle in the city of Tabatz, a woman standing on the fortress of the city threw a stone on his head and broke his skull. The idea of being killed by a woman was too humiliating for Avimelech so he asked his carrier to make the final blow, since his condition did not allow him to kill himself. The servant obeyed without hesitation, and stabbed Avimelech to death (see Judges 9:25–31). Avimelech's act of suicide was not condoned. His name and image remained a symbol of shun and humiliation of his efforts to hide his shame and preserve his dignity after death (Samuel 11:21). He was remembered as a humiliated figure. Further, the Bible makes it very clear that Avimelech's death was actually a punishment by God for his bad deeds (see Judges 9:56–57 and Kaplan and Schwartz 1993).

Samson's suicide is the second mentioned in the prophets. His suicide was unique in that it was actually assisted by God. Samson was one of the greatest defenders and leaders of Israel. His heroism was made prominent in his victories over the Philistine army; his tragedy came about in his caveat to his Philistine lover, to whom he disclosed the secrets of his powers. Samson was captured, blinded, and publicly mocked by the Philistines. Faced with torture and death, he asked God for the strength to kill himself and to take as many of his enemies with him as possible. Samson asked God to assist him in the act of suicide: ‘Let me die with the Philistines’ (Judges 16:30). God granted his wish, and gave Samson the power to pull down the central pillars of the temple of Dagon, killing thousands in one blow.

Samson's suicide is clearly motivated, not only by a desire for revenge, but also by his sense of duty to complete his obligations to his people. His purpose was not self-annihilation, despite the grim reality that he was facing, but rather the carrying out of his divinely ordained mission to free Israel from the Philistines (Kaplan and Schwartz 1993). The scriptures state that his suicide was followed by a long period of peace for the Israelites. (Judges 16:23–31, and Kaplan and Schwartz 1993). According to Shneidman's theory (1984), one might say that the description of Samson's fate leaves room for the interpretation that his suicide was aimed at achieving a purpose, as opposed to the escape from pain. What is clear is that Samson's suicide is not condemned either in the Bible or by later commentators. On the contrary, he became a symbol of heroism (Shemesh 2003), and this is confirmed by the description of the respect that he received during his burial. Samson's birth and death both occurred with the direct involvement of God (Shemesh 2003).

The third suicide mentioned is that of King Saul, the first king of Israel. King Saul launched a war against the Philistines. He realized that he was losing the war: he was badly wounded, three of his sons and many of his soldiers were killed. Saul knew that he was going to be taken prisoner, and subsequently tortured and humiliated at the hands of his enemies.

In despair, Saul turns to his carrier and says: ‘Draw thy sword and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and make a mock out of me.’ He was, in a sense, requesting an assisted suicide. However, his servant refuses to obey. ‘Therefore, Saul took his sward and fell upon it’ (Samuel I, 31:1–4). Soon after Saul fell on his sword, his servant killed himself in, what seems to be an act of solidarity (Shemesh 2003).

Nowhere in the description of Saul's suicide is his act condemned. The tone of the narrative seems to even be one of sympathy towards Saul. The people of Yavesh Gilaad, a nearby village to the battle field, provided a dignified burial for Saul and his sons and mourned his death for seven days (see Samuel I, 3:11–13). While this may appear as simply a documentation of events, there is a meta-analytic fact involved, in that the scriptures do not choose to transpose their own attitude upon the story of the act committed. The absence of this message is, in itself, provoking.

The fourth suicide in the bible was committed by Ahitopel (Samuel I, 17:23) Ahitopel attained his reputation as one of the most wise and respected advisors of his times, serving as an advisor to King David. Ahitopel left King David and aligned himself with David's son Avshalom in a rebellion against the king. However, this new alliance was soon foolishly betrayed by Avshalom. Ahitopel was made aware that Avshalom was tricked by another advisor into following a foolhardy plan certain to lead to David's victory and to the failure of Avshalom rebellion. In response, Ahitopel set his house in order, makes final arrangements for his family, and strangles himself (Samuel I, 17:23, see also Kaplan and Schwartz 1993).

While it is clear that Ahitopel's suicide was a response to the events described before it, his exact motives are left unclear. Commentators have suggested numerous post-mortem interpretations: that Ahitopel was overcome with disappointment in his own lack of judgement in aligning himself with Avshalom rather than David; that Ahitopel was deeply humiliated by Avshalom's preference for advice from another. A third view is that Ahitopel feared David's vengeance (Shemesh 2003). One Talmudic explanation is that the motive was a utilitarian one

The fifth suicide in the Book of Prophets is that one committed by Zimri, a high-ranking officer in the army who killed Elah the king of Israel, and took over the kingdom. However, Omri, another high-ranking officer, then lead the army to siege Zimri's palace. Zimri realized that he would not be able to overcome the siege and chose to commit suicide rather than be murdered, by setting fire to his palace (Kings I, 16:18). As in the case of Samson, there is an element of revenge by burning the palace, although his main motive was to escape being murdered. While Zimri's fate of being brought to suicide is described in the scriptures as a punishment for his wrong deeds, Zimri's decision to commit the suicidal act is not, in itself, addressed.

In reviewing all the suicides and death wishes that are described in the scripture, it seems that in no single case is there a condemnation of the suicidal act or death wishes. In most cases, the reputation of the figures that committed suicide seems undamaged by the act; the wicked are remembered for their wickedness, and the heroes remain remembered for their heroics. Even more puzzling is the case of Samson, whose suicide is assisted by God.

The Talmudic and the Midrashic approach to the issue of suicide are far more complicated than the one that is present in the Bible. The Talmud addresses the issue of suicide in three ways: (1) through discussion and interpretation of the suicides described in the Bible; (2) through Midrash stories of suicides that occurred at the time of the Talmud; (3) and finally, by drawing Halachic conclusions regarding suicide. From a purely Halachic perspective, the sages of the Talmud take a strong stand against suicide and determine decisively that suicide is prohibited and punishable by preventing burial honours from the suicide completers, such as rending of the mourner's garments, delivering of the memorial address (Semachot 2:1; Yoreh Deáh 345). Warnings against suicide also include punishment in the hereafter. At the same time, the Talmud and Midrash reflect ambivalence and present contradictions with regard to the issue of suicide. However, these actually serve to elucidate that defining suicide and determining its consequences is a complex matter. For example, the Midrash Raba (on Genesis 9:5) concludes that the suicide of Saul should not be considered a prohibited suicide. How was Saul's suicide not a suicide? Several reasons are mentioned for this exclusion: he was afraid of the torture that would be imminent if he were to be captured; he was afraid that he would be forced to worship idols; he did not want to cause a desecration of God's name by being captured and by committing suicide he saved many of his fighters' lives (Shemesh 2003). Thus, the Talmudic interpretation of Saul's suicide says that there are certain conditions under which taking one's own life may not be considered a sin.

There is a Talmudic story about Rabbi Hanina ben Tardion, who was bound to a Torah scroll and burned to death with it by the Romans. His students pleaded with him: ‘Open then thy mouth… so that the fire enter into thee.’ However, he refused to take even a slight active part in his own imminent death, despite his great suffering: ‘Let Him who gave me [my soul] take it away, but no one should injure oneself.’ The Roman executioner offered to end Hanina's torture by removing the wet sponge that was placed upon his heart to artificially prolong his torture. Rabbi Hanina agreed to this, and both he and the executioner were promised a place in heaven (Avoda Zara 18a). From this tale, it appears that no active role may be taken, even under intolerable pain, but a passive participation in suicide under such circumstances was acceptable. However, the Talmud also cites suicide stories with an embedded lesson that active suicide is permitted under certain circumstances. One example of this in the story that relates the suicide of 400 boys and girls who were captured by the Romans, and were to be condemned to a life of prostitution in Rome (Gittin 57b). They turned to the eldest among them and asked him if under such conditions suicide is considered a sin. The elder gave permission to commit suicide based on his interpretation of a verse in Psalms. The children leaped into the sea and died. They feared lest idol worshippers force them to sin and they preferred death, not out of fear of torture or personal reasons, but for purely religious reasons. The children's suicide is clearly condoned in the Talmud. There is also an account of a number of suicides of young Cohanim (priests who served in the Temple) who killed themselves when Romans set fire to the Temple (Taanit 29a). The Talmud justifies these suicides as an act aimed at sanctifying God's Holy name. The common thread to these stories, according to the Talmud, is that there are instances in which one is required to give up one's life rather than to transgress. Such instances include when one is forced to commit incest, murder, or idolatry. The Talmud determines that in these circumstances one should give up one's life passively, that is let oneself be killed, but not actively commit suicide (Sanhedrin 74a).

What of suicide because of personally unbearable emotional pain? One such suicide story involves a student whose name was falsely besmirched by a prostitute, and he killed himself out of sinless shame (Berachot 23a). The Talmud does not condemn his suicide.

The Talmud also discusses the case of Tzidkiyahu, a king who was captured and tortured by the Babylonians. The Babylonian king ordered that Tzidkiyahu's children be slaughtered before his eyes and then his eyes would be poked out. Rabbi Yehuda—a Talmudic sage—wondered why Tzidkiyahu did not, in this situation, smash his head against the wall in order to kill himself (Midrash Raba on Aicha, Chapter A, 59). Such a question obviously reflects the belief that under certain unbearable emotional distress, suicide can be considered as a logical conclusion.

In the Talmud, suicide is recognized as a social issue worthy of sensitivity. There are several stories reflecting this sensitivity, for example, there are two suicides of young children described in the Talmud (Semachot, Chapters 2 and 5). One child ran away from school, and the father was about to punish him. The child committed suicide as an escape from the punishment. Another child broke a bottle on the Sabbath (this is considered a transgression of the Sabbath observation). The child, similar to the previous case, also took his life out of the fear of being punished by his father. Neither of these cases was defined as being intentional suicides (Kaplan and Schwartz 1993). In relating these stories, the sages of the Talmud warn that educational strategies should not include unduly harsh punishment.

The rabbinic codex that was established throughout the years after the Talmud was edited has strict rules against suicide. However, in order to obey these rules, the definition of suicide must first be clarified. The definition and examples, as well as the rules governing mourning are based on the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah, Chapter 355). It must be established without a doubt that the person was seen in an agitated state, and, indeed, intend to complete suicide. If, however, they did not declare intent, or the person was not actually seen before or during the act, the death cannot be proclaimed a suicide. There must be a clear connection between a declaration of intent and the actual deed. Otherwise, if, for example, a person declared intent but was not actually seen ascending or falling, the stated intent is attributed to exaggeration, and conjecture that they may have accidentally fallen or even have been pushed by another person. The following illustrations are even examples of the tendency to mitigate the humiliation and anguish associated with suicide whenever possible. Even if a person is found dead with the lethal weapon nearby; the rabbi may declare that the person was murdered. If a letter that obviously was composed in a clear state of mind is found, in the event that a long time has elapsed since it was composed, the possibility is raised that the writer may have changed their mind, and the death was perhaps accidental or executed when they were in a deranged state of mind. The following example adds another dimension to our understanding of the halacha concerning suicide. A person, after having declared their intent to end their life, jumps into a river. It seems obvious that this is a clear-cut case of suicide, nevertheless, if the possibility exists that perhaps the drowning person had second thoughts while struggling in the water, it is not declared a suicide. The examples and discussion clearly demonstrate that rabbinic authorities sought to minimize labelling death as suicide even when doing so seemed far-fetched. Their motives for doing so stem from the fact that the Talmud propounded the principle that when controversy exists in issues related to mourning, the lenient position takes precedence. The psychological meaning inherent in this principle is that it is proper to minimize the anguish of family members. It also shows a marked respect for the frailty of humans, engendering empathy, although it does not condone the act itself.

The renowned story about the heroism of the fighters of Mesada has become a mythological legend. However, documentation of the events lack clarification. No reference can be found in the writings of the sages on this topic, even though, given the period, one would expect reference to it. Perhaps the lack of attention indicates that the sages were not comfortable with this topic. We have no sound and reliable historical evidence about the event. Our knowledge is based upon the book, The War of the Jews, written by Josephus Falvius in 73 AD, which includes the speech of Eliezer ben Yair, the commander who led the others in slaughtering their wives and children, and then each other until they were all dead (pp. 600–601). If we chose to rely upon his speech as it appears in Wars of the Jews (some claim that it is fabricated, and content-wise seems to belong to Josephus, see Kaplan and Schwartz [1993]), the cause of suicide of ben Yair and his people was their refusal to live a life of slavery. We do not have sufficient information about the conditions of Roman captivity, and the threat that these individuals were facing if they were to surrender. In any event, it is clear that the sages did not find it justifiable to end one's life rather than be enslaved.

Josephus also documents the suicides of the fighters of Gamla, who held onto their wives and children and jumped into a pit with them. There is a critical tone in Josephus' writings in regards to the act:

And the things occurred that the wrath of the Romans was revealed as more subtle than madness itself, because these [the Romans] killed only four thousand people, while these who threw themselves down were more than five thousand.

Wars of the Jews (pp. 324–328)

During the Crusades between the years 1099 to 1204, in most of the European countries, entire communities were faced with the cruel decision: conversion or death. Some chose a superficial conversion to Christianity, they were the first Anusim (forced ones). However, most chose death. The testimonies left behind indicate that they did not wait for the Romans to kill them, but took the matter into their own hands. Many songs were written about that period in time to commemorate the martyrs: four of them were made part of the yearly prayers of the day of the destruction of the Temple, so that their memory is evoked with the memory of the destruction of the Temple. This seems to reflect the positive attitude of the sages towards their decision to kill themselves, rather than waiting for the crusaders to come and kill them.

Maimonides, a master, rabbi, and philosopher from the twelfth century, makes a distinction between murder and suicide (Nezikin, Chapter 2). The logical conclusion to his reasoning, it seems, is that suicide, notwithstanding the gravity of the sin, is not to be equated with murder. The act does not deprive a fellow human of their most prized possession—their life. It also is not as disruptive to society as murder, which negates the law and order of a civilized society. Suicide, unlike murder, does not unravel the fabric of society.

We are now faced with the question why, if suicide does not involve another human being and is not a major disruption of society, is it considered a grave transgression? The solution to this dilemma touches upon some of Judaism's cardinal beliefs. One's life and one's soul are, unlike one's possessions, not one's property. Life is not an object to dispense with whenever one chooses to do so. The sages (Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 4) teach that a person does not choose to be born, to live, or to die, and stand on judgment. Maimonides emphasizes that man is created in God's image [in a spiritual sense], hence the prohibition to obliterate it (Laws of Murder, Chapter 1, Halacha 4). Death is, in a spiritual sense, a cleansing force. This means that God deems one's difficulties and misfortunes, including one's demise, when judging the individual. This does not hold in the case of suicide, the rationale being that, if someone chooses to take their own life, death cannot be viewed as a cleansing force. On the contrary, the very act of dying by suicide is a sin.

An additional philosophical perspective on suicide can be deducted from the book of Job (Orbach 1994). The biblical story of Job is a story of a man's quest for meaning in the relationship between man and God in face of unbearable and unjust human suffering. The book of Job also sends a clear message against suicide. The incomprehensible, drastic, traumatic, and painful events occurring to Job may lead us, modern researchers of suicidal behaviour, to expect Job to put an end to his unjust suffering by suicide, just as his wife suggests to him. Nevertheless, for Job, this is out of the question. On the contrary, despite his sufferings, he seems to gain unexplained strength and emerges as a powerful personality with inner mental resources that enable him to sustain his tragic existential situation. Job is suffering from the sudden collapse of his secure environment, reduced status and health, loss of his beloved children, and the love of his friends. Yet, the crisis in his belief in God and his struggle to gain meaning from a religious standpoint is the most important paradigm that he faces. Job's lack of comprehension for God's leadership of the world constitutes a loss of meaning in life. This has a tremendous emotional impact. He is shaken by anxiety, fear, depression, and loss of direction.

What then prevented Job from killing himself? Why didn't he listen to his wife's advice to curse God and die? The scripture lends itself to two types of possible explanations, a psychological and a theological. The most potent motivational force against suicide in Job can be attributed to his unwillingness to give up the search for meaning in life in spite of his unfortunate destiny; a powerful life-enhancing motivation. Was it attitudes of self-righteousness, the stubborn search for meaning, holding onto hope in order to find meaning can constitute protective factors against suicide? The book of Job also uses a special literary device to convey the theological stance that suicide, as an option for solving problems and escaping pain, is forbidden. The author of Job portrays a protagonist struggling with extreme circumstances which may lead to suicide, but he stops short of committing this act, as though telling the reader that from a religious point of view, suicide is unacceptable. Although, there are several cases of suicide throughout the Bible, the Book of Job opposes suicide on personal and psychological grounds.

Kaplan and Schwartz (1993) eloquently delineate therapeutic and preventive principles offered through biblical stories to respond to the suicidal thoughts or wishes expressed by various biblical heroes. The authors note several therapeutic interventions by God as examples of how suicidal urges should be approached therapeutically. These include protective regression, nurturance, support, guidance, practical advice, providing meaning and renewal of faith and relationships as well as encouragement to face difficulties.

Jonah, for example, not only expresses a wish to die, but also asks the sailors of the sinking ship to throw him overboard. God sends a whale to swallow him into the warmth and safety of the womb, a symbol of protective regression. Later on, Jonah sits under the hot sun and God shields him from the sun with a gourd. After the symbiotic protection, there is a drive toward an individuation, but still under a protective shield. Finally, God helps Jonah to find meaning in life by teaching him the value of mercy—to help others without being absorbed by them. Similar therapeutic interventions are taken by God when Alijah, Moses, David, and Rebecca express suicidal wishes (see Kaplan and Schwartz 1993).

The Talmudic sages, and later commentators of the Talmud and the Bible, emphasize the need for social support, warm relationships, and lenient educational measures for children; no harsh punishments, and if punishment is needed it should be carried out close to the transgressive act and not later in time. The most important preventative principle advocated by Jewish communities throughout history is support through a rich network of social relationships that promotes cohesiveness and a sense of belongingness and mutual support. The scriptures and rabbinic law demand mutual responsibility and involvement for the welfare of the other. This requires taking an active involvement when the other is in need of help. These psychological principles are absorbed, not only among orthodox Jews, but can be found throughout Jewish communities.

Religious authorities today are making strong efforts to clear the stigma of psychological and psychiatric problems. They encourage psychological and psychiatric help when needed, in addition to their own effort and the comfort to be found in religion. One example is an organization called Retorno (Return), an inpatient rehabilitation centre run by religious and professional authorities, geared at rehabilitating teens and adults with various self-destructive behaviours, including suicidal behaviours, using clinical methods with a religious orientation, including individual and group therapy, spiritual guidance, religious studies and practices. They place a strong emphasis on mutual support within the group and from as well as to the community outside the centre. Communal living, social support, advancement of social cohesion, and providing meaning to life by helping others, as well as warm and authoritative guidance and advice are some of the practical approaches applied in religious therapeutic centres for troubled youth.

Social support is not the only preventative measure implied in the Jewish approach to prevention of suicide. Although, the Biblical, Talmudic and Rabbinic views are complex, the message is very clear: suicide for personal reasons is categorically forbidden. Prohibition of suicide and its taboo is also reflected in the burial and mourning rituals. When a person dies of natural causes or an involuntary death, there are special burial rituals as well as mourning rituals for the first seven days, the first month and the first year after the death. These include, among others, the purification of the deceased body, the ritualistic tearing of the cloths by the blood relatives, funeral oration, saying the Kaddish prayer, barefoot sitting for seven days in mourning (Shiva), and the consoling of the relatives by the community members. In case of suicide, the Talmud determines that there should be no ritual tearing, no barefoot sitting and no mourning. Later, some rabbinic authorities added that people who have committed suicide will not receive the ritualistic purification and will be buried in a separate and distant section of the cemeteries (Liechtenstein 1991).

These omissions of the rituals were meant to warn the person who intends to commit suicide that their ‘Post Self Image’ (Shneidman 1985) intends will be damaged, thus, preventing the self-destructive behaviour.

In actuality, such omissions are very rarely implemented. As discussed earlier, the Jewish approach reflects an empathic understanding of human suffering and of the suicidal state of mind. It also offers a very minimalist definition of what is considered to be a suicide in an attempt to respect and avoid further suffering by the family.

Israel has a relatively low rate of suicide.The latest figures that were released show that in the year 2005, the rates for the general population was 8.6/100,000 (Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel 2007). Although, Israel can be considered a secular state, where religious manners and views are held by a substantial majority of Israelis, and this is probably an important factor in the relatively low rate of suicide. The rates for those who were observant of religious laws cannot be determined, as no such information appears in any official statistics; but Levav, Magnes, Aisenberg and Rosenbaum (1988) have found that suicidal behaviour and suicidal ideation is far less prevalent among religious observers as compared to non-observers; the more the religiosity, the less the suicidality. These findings resonate with the general impression of very low suicide rates among observant people in Israel. This was also found to be true for other religions (Stack 1992). Apparently, any religious faith constitutes a first-degree protective factor against suicide.