Siman 345

We learn in Semachot at the beginning of the second chapter: One who destroys himself willfully—we do not occupy ourselves with him in any matter. Rabbi Ishmael says: We call out over him, "Alas, he has hanged himself! Alas, he has hanged himself!" Rabbi Akiva said to him: Leave him in silence—do not honor him and do not curse him, etc. Thus far his words. That is to say: that destroying oneself willfully is a great sin, and he has no portion in the World to Come. And there is a proof for this from Gittin (Gittin 57), see there. Therefore, Rabbi Ishmael holds that it is permitted to curse him and disparage him, and they say: "Alas for you that you hanged yourself!" and this is when he destroyed himself by hanging. And so too if he destroyed himself by another death—they mention to him that death. And Rabbi Akiva holds: Do not honor him and do not curse him. For who can know, for perhaps he lost his mind, or was under duress due to some awe or fear? Therefore, they should leave it in silence, neither with honor nor with disparagement. And I am surprised that the poskim did not bring this.

And we learned there: One does not rend garments for him, and one does not bare the shoulder for him, and one does not deliver a funeral oration for him. However, one stands in the line for him, and one recites the mourners' blessing for him, because it is for the honor of the living. The general rule is: Whatever is for the honor of the living—one occupies oneself with it. Whatever is not for the honor of the living—the public does not occupy itself with him for any matter. Thus far his words. And the Tur wrote: This "one does not rend" refers to distant relatives for honor. But the relatives who are fit to mourn—they rend for him. Thus far his words. And this is from the words of the Ramban in Torat HaAdam, and from their words it is explained that one mourns for him. But such is not the opinion of the Rambam at the end of the first chapter of Mourning, and this is his wording: One who destroys etc. and one does not mourn for him, and one does not deliver a funeral oration for him. However, one stands in the line for him, and one recites the mourners' blessing for him, and any matter that is for the honor of the living. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote that one does not mourn, and consequently one does not rend for him. And in truth, seemingly his words are compelling, for rending and mourning are not for the honor of the living, as is understood. And explicitly it is proven so in Sanhedrin that mourning is only for the sake of the honor of the deceased (as the Lechem Mishneh wrote, see there). And regarding the opinion of the Ramban and the Tur, it appears to me that they inferred from Masechet Semachot there, which stated: "Whatever is not for the honor of the living, the public does not occupy itself with him for any matter." Thus far his words. For it is only regarding distant relatives that there is a practical difference between what is for the honor of the living and what is for the honor of the deceased. But the relatives themselves—they must rend and mourn as for all the deceased. And it is not similar to those executed by the beit din, as will be explained, for there they judged him according to the Torah. But one who destroys himself willfully, granted that the distant public, since according to appearances he was liable for this, therefore they distance themselves from whatever is for the honor of the deceased. But relatives are obligated in every matter, and they have reason to judge that perhaps he is not liable for this, as Rava said: Do not honor him and do not curse him (so it appears in my humble opinion).

We have further learned there: Who is one who destroys himself willfully? Not one who climbed to the top of a tree and fell and died, or to the top of a roof and fell and died. Rather, it is one who said: "Behold, I am climbing to the top of the tree or to the top of the roof and I will cast myself down and die." And they see him climb and fall and die—behold, he is presumed to be one who destroyed himself willfully, and they do not occupy themselves with him, etc. If they found him strangled and hanging from a tree, or slain and cast upon a sword—he is not presumed to be one who destroyed himself willfully, and they do not withhold from him any matter. It happened with the son of Gornos in Lod that he ran away from school, and his father gestured to him by his ear, and he became afraid of his father and went and destroyed himself in a pit. And they came and asked Rabbi Tarfon, and he said: They do not withhold from him any matter, etc. From here the sages said: A person should not gesture to a child by his ear, but rather he should strike him immediately, or remain silent and say nothing to him. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Regarding the inclination of a child and a woman—let the left hand push away and the right hand draw near. Thus far his words.

And we have learned from this that one who destroys himself willfully is not so called unless he said beforehand that through this death he will destroy himself, and we also saw that he immediately performed this death upon himself (see Shach, subsection 3). But if he acted and did not speak, or spoke and we did not see for ourselves that he acted, even though he was found in this state of death—nevertheless, perhaps a madness overcame him. And so too when he acted out of fear, even though he should have understood that his fear was a minor matter, as in the case of the son of Gurgos who should have understood what his father would do to him, nevertheless the fear confused him and it is as if it were not willful. And even if he said: "I will go and hang myself," and went immediately and did so—this is not one who destroys himself willfully when he acted out of fear. (So it appears to me to explain that case of the son of Gurgos. For if not so, without the reason of fear he is not like one who destroys etc., since he did not say so beforehand. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

The general rule of the matter: regarding one who destroys himself willfully—we attribute it to any possible attribution whatsoever; for example, to attribute it to fear, or to pain, or that he lost his mind, or that he thought it was a mitzvah so as not to stumble into other transgressions, and things similar to these, because it is truly a remote thing that a person would commit such an atrocity with a clear mind. Go and learn from Saul the righteous, who fell upon his sword so that the Philistines would not abuse him, and things similar to this are called a case of duress. And all the more so a minor who destroys himself willfully, for he is considered as one without will.

Those executed by the beit din during the time of the Temple, when the Sanhedrin would judge for the death penalty, it was taught there that one does not occupy oneself with them for any matter. Their brothers and relatives come and inquire after the welfare of the witnesses and the judges, to say that "we have nothing in our hearts against you, for you have judged a true judgment." And they would not mourn but were onenim, for aninut is only in the heart. Rabbi Natan says: There is no difference between silence and weeping (perhaps his intention is to disagree, that they should not even be onenim in the heart). And those executed by the government, when the government gives permission to bury him properly and to eulogize him – they shall do so. And if not – they shall not do so. And one who stole or robbed and was killed because of this is not called "one who destroys himself willfully." And if he was killed by the law of the government – they shall do according to the command of the government.

And one who dies under a ban of distancing, as is explained in siman 334—his law is like one who commits suicide: we do not rend garments, nor do we bare the shoulder, and we do not deliver a funeral oration for him. And consequently, according to the Ramban the relatives rend garments as I have written, and they place a stone upon his coffin. And these words apply to matters of insolence, when he transgresses words of Torah. But in matters of money, once he dies—he is exempt from their decree. And we do not place a stone upon his coffin, and we deliver a funeral oration as is appropriate. And all those who separate from the ways of the community, and they are those who have cast off the yoke of the mitzvot from their necks, and are not included within the collective of Israel in their actions, and in the honor of the festivals, and the sitting in synagogues and study halls, and they are like free men for themselves in casting off the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven; and likewise informers, and those who convert to become Ishmaelites—for all of these we do not observe aninut and we do not mourn for them. Rather, their brothers and the rest of their relatives wear white, and wrap themselves in white, and eat and drink and rejoice. And one who separates from the community regarding taxes and levies, because he does not wish to enter into the yoke of taxes—the relatives mourn for him. But the rest of the people of the city do not need to abstain from work in order to occupy themselves with him. And a minor who converted with his mother and died—we do not mourn for him. And likewise with his father, and there are those who disagree on this (see Dagul Mervavah). And our teacher Gershom, Light of the Exile, sat for fourteen days when his son converted.

We learned in Semachot at the end of the second chapter: From when do they begin to count for those executed by the government? From the time they have despaired of requesting and burying. But not to steal the executed person without the knowledge of the government, for anyone who steals—it is as if he spills blood. And not only a spiller of blood, but like a worshiper of stars, and like one who uncovers forbidden relations, and like those who desecrate the Shabbat. Similarly, one who steals the customs tax—it is as if he spills blood. And not only a spiller of blood, but like a worshiper of stars, and like one who uncovers forbidden relations, and like those who desecrate the Shabbat (thus the Vilna Gaon emended the text). And one who fell into the sea, or a river swept him away, or a wild beast ate him—one does not withhold anything from them. From when do they begin to count for them? From the time they have despaired of searching. If they found him limb by limb—one does not count for him until his head and the majority of his body are found. And if the body is whole—one purifies it like other deceased. And in a place where there are wounds on the body, and it is soiled with blood there—one is not to purify the place soiled with blood. And a coffin of a deceased person that passes from place to place, if its skeleton is intact, which is the spine and its ribs—one stands over it in a row. And one says over it the blessing of mourners and the consolation of mourners if there are mourners who are mourning for him. And if its skeleton is not intact—one does not stand over it in a row, and one does not say over it the blessing of mourners nor the consolation of mourners.