Burying a Suicide Victim in a Jewish Cemetery

One of those questions I hear every so often: Do we bury someone in a Jewish cemetery if he commits suicide?

I was reminded of the question by this CNN.com article:
When college students take their lives, as apparently happened recently at Cornell University, the instinctual reaction, to mourn publicly and officially, may be the wrong thing to do, psychologists say.
The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention recommends that schools have a "muted response" to suicide, said Ann Haas, director of suicide prevention projects. That's because students already vulnerable to suicide may be attracted to the idea of getting recognition or gratification in death.
"For those students who seem to really be at risk, there's something about those kinds of memorials that really can trigger additional suicide," she said…
Researchers have found that suicide can, in effect, be contagious, creating clusters of people taking their own lives in close proximity within a few months. The people involved may not have had any direct contact, but publicity of the suicide, including through large vigils and assemblies, may result in more suicidal behavior, said Madelyn Gould, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center.
"We do feel that some memorials need to take place, but it might be worth trying to develop some suicide prevention activity to honor that person," she said.

Along similar lines, I remember hearing that newspapers have a policy of not explicitly recording ‘suicide’ as a cause of death in their Obituary columns, lest that inspire imitators. [See Student Newspaper Guidelines here.]

These policies confirm the longstanding but controversial Jewish practice of avoiding public honors for people who commit suicide (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Avel 1:11):

המאבד עצמו לדעת אין מתעסקין עמו לכל דבר ואין מתאבלין עליו ואין מספידין אותו, אבל עומדין עליו בשורה ואומרין עליו ברכת אבלים וכל דבר שהוא כבוד לחיים

If a person knowingly destroys himself, we do not involve ourselves with him for anything. We do not mourn for him, we do not eulogize him, but we do form a condolence line and recite the blessing for mourners and perform all other practices which honor the living.

This is a tough practice, and one that I’ve never actually seen implemented; as the Rambam himself wrote there, and as the Aruch haShulchan noted (Yoreh Deah 345:5) seven centuries later, we depend on any possible explanation to conclude that this was not an intentional suicide.

But why have the practice in the first place? Because of the fear outlined by Ann Haas and Madelyn Gould; we don’t want to encourage others to do likewise for the sake of honor.

To return to the main question, this is why people think that we do not bury a suicide victim in a Jewish cemetery. However, neither the Rambam nor the Shulchan Aruch says anything about excluding that person from a Jewish cemetery. Indeed, the Shach to Yoreh Deah 345:1 seems to say that we do bury the person in a Jewish cemetery.

I did know of one case, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in which a woman was alleged to have committed suicide, and she was buried outside of the cemetery gates. Some years later, though, they expanded the cemetery – and so her grave ended up in with those of everyone else.

Daf: Sotah 12-14

Sorry to take so long before posting another installment. There is so much to say on these pages, and so little time to type it up. As always, you'll really need a gemara in front of you to see what I am discussing.

12a
See Tosafot Acheirim

Tosafot cheimar suggests that Moshe's boat was camoflagued in the reeds because the tar and pitch linings were on the inside. This is interesting, b/c it magnifies the miracle that Bat Paroh saw the boat at all!

12b
How can Moshe say that the Jewish babies were saved because he was cast into the water – the whole decree to throw the kids in the water was because of him! See Tosafot and Maharsha, who both address the issue.

The question of “How could Moshe get hurt on the water if he will sing to Gd on the water one day” is odd; what is the connection? Especially as this may not be yam suf! (It is reminiscent of a gemara in Taanit, though, regarding a ditch-digger whose daughter fell in a ditch and was protected by his merit.)

How could you have had a 'leap month' in those days? They haven't even learned HaChodesh haZeh Lachem! Reminiscent of Seder Olam that the sod haibbur was passed down from Adam and Chavah.

The issue of nursing from an eater of treif is interesting - see Rav Schachter's noteworthy comment in this issue, cited in my post here.

13a
The gemara here, per Rashi on the 36 crowns, assumes that the two Korachs mentioned in the lineage of Esav in Bereishit 36 are different people – but see Rashi to Bereishit 36:5, where he says that they are the same person.

Did the children of Keturah come for Yaakov’s funeral? Rashi does not think so, but Tosafot Shantz does.

See the Maharsha on the mourning of the horses and donkeys (which, of course, is reminiscent of the city of Nineveh).

I have difficulty understanding why the Gemara here seems to criticize the Jews for being involved in taking the spoils of Egypt, when Berachot 9a, based on דבר נא in Shmot 11, indicates that HaShem had to plead with them to take spoils! (Unless the plea is from before the actual departure, and then they “got into it” afterward, while Moshe was getting Yosef’s body?)

13b
Note that the line קיים זה כל מה שכתוב בזה is the source for burying a Torah scroll with a righteous person.

Interesting transition in the line about Yosef being returned to Shechem. Yosef is “stolen” from Shechem, and returned to Shechem as a “lost object” – removing the human agency and blame from the picture. And is he Yaakov’s lost object?

Of course, the Torah seems to indicate that Yosef was removed from Dotan, not Shechem, but see Rashi here.

The gemara here seems to pin the death of Er and Onan on Yehudah, instead of on their own famous sins. Perhaps it’s that Yehudah’s problem made them vulnerable to punishment?

Interesting: Yaakov’s degradation comes from others (who call him Yosef’s servant), but Yosef’s degradation, which is a punishment of sorts for him, comes from himself (when he calls himself ‘bones’). Recall the gemara in Taanit regarding placing ash on the heads of the sages on a public fast – degradation is worse when it comes from others.

Note that although Moshe dies at 120, that is not a source for saying that 120 is a maximum on people’s lives. I hope to post on this issue soon, but for now see Tosafot Bava Batra 113a ומטו.

14a
Rashi renders גסטרא here as a ruler, but note the usual translation of a split or broken receptacle.

Regarding the Bach’s note א, recall that there is a midrash in which Moshe does attempt to bring the Jews back to Israel after their exile.

We see here the idea of a grave being a significant place for prayer.

Here our patriarchs are called עצומים, mighty ones; this is parallel to the term איתנים used for them in the gemara toward the beginning of Rosh HaShanah on ירח האיתנים.

Tosafot כדי on “דורשין טעמא דקרא” makes the important distinction between analyzing the deeper meaning of pesukim for ethical lessons and analyzing the deeper meaning of pesukim for lessons which may affect the way we fulfill a mitzvah. See also Hirsch’s introduction to Horeb.

14b
Regarding the “face of the altar” see Tosafot Shantz as well as Rashi Zevachim 62a.

Daf: Nazir 44-47

More notes, some of which may actually be interesting for non-daffies to read. At any rate, writing these up is good chazarah for me.

44a
An interesting note on exhuming a body – per Tosafos ובאו, R’ Yitzchak wanted to exhume his father’s body in order to bury it with the bodies of the rest of his family. This is, indeed, one of the few justifications for exhuming a body: to unite a family.

The name R’ Yehoshua ben Elisha is unfamiliar; note that the Rosh had it as the much more common R’ Yishmael ben Elisha. (Per Tosafos toward the beginning of Yevamos, there were at least three figures named R’ Yishmael ben Elisha.)

45a
Towards the top of the page, where Abayye says a טבול יום is like a זב, the Rosh has a significant change: A טבול יום is not like a זב.

Here we are told that Moshe carried Yosef’s body with him in the camp of the leviyyim. Note, though, that Yosef was actually transported through the midbar by others, per Succah 25, and that this triggered the need for Pesach Sheni! However, our gemara could be within the view that Pesach Sheni was actually triggered by the kohanim who had carried Nadav and Avihu from the mishkan.

The Zav is called a מחוסר כפרה, but the Nazir is not. Perhaps this is because the nazir’s korbanos are to re-start his nezirus, and not to conclude his tumah. (Although I’m not sure how R’ Eliezer would react to this; he said the Nazir already starts his new count after completing the 7 days of taharah…)

We seem to be conflicted here as to whether shaving at the entrance to the mishkan/mikdash is considered degrading to the sanctity of the place, or not. According to the view that it is degrading, when the Torah said the nazir should shave פתח אהל מועד, it didn’t mean that he must do that. But I don’t really understand that position; if shaving there were degrading, why would it be permitted at all?

45b
The mishnah at the bottom of the page mentions שילוק, a type of cooking which is in a liquid medium but is not the same as normal boiling, which is called בישול. Pseudo-Rashi here renders it as “not well-cooked,” but everyone else, including pseudo-Rashi in Nedarim 49a, renders it as “overdone.” The Bach here comments that perhaps this note of “not well-cooked” means “not cooked well, but rather overdone.”

46b
As the Rosh notes (printed on 46a), the mishnah here does not need to mention the case of one who shaved on the chatas שלא לשמה; it’s brought only to complete the set of chatas, olah and shelamim.

47b
How do you end up with two simultaneous Kohanim Gedolim?!
The Rosh brings one explanation that it is where the first became unable to serve for a limited, defined period of time (such as one day for קרי), and then the second was appointed, and then the first returned to eligibility – but he rejects this view, because in such a case the temporary replacement is no longer eligible to serve once the first returns to eligibility, and so the priority question in the gemara is easy to answer.
The Rosh then brings a second view, from Rabbeinu Moshe, that this is where the first kohen gadol was out for an indefinite period because of illness or exile to a city of refuge. In such a case the replacement would not lose his kohen gadol status when the first returne; they would both be able to serve.

Daf: Nedarim 82-87

Lots of small notes on these dapim, probably unintelligible to anyone who isn’t actually learning them.

82b
See the Rosh’s two approaches on באחת מתענה ובא' אינו מתענה; the two approaches are interesting in their difference.

R’ Yochanan’s view seems to negate the Rosh’s perplexing view back on 68a that the
husband would be nullifying one olive and the father nullifying the other (credit: Henry)

83a-b
It’s interesting to note that everyone here in this gemara takes it for granted that women go to the cemetery; I am familiar with a custom among some sectors of German Jewry, for example, that woman do not attend the cemetery.

85a
I found it valuable to see Tosafos Chullin 131a יש בו in order to grasp this gemara

See the Rosh’s note on ר' יוסי ב"ר יהודה, regarding the inappropriate use of the term קנס. His note regarding the language in Nedarim is, of course, reminiscent of Tosafos Nedarim 7a on תיבעי לך.

86a
The key here is to remember three factors that determine the strength or weakness of a נודר: (a) Ownership of the item, (b) Connection to the person who will become forbidden to use the item, and (c) Existence of the item currently.

87a
It’s odd that pseudo-Rashi says the second והתניא supports Rav Ashi. We usually call a והתניא a support only if it actually provides support – this one challenges Rav Ashi, until we re-write it!

The Ran translates מגדף here as blasphemy. Elsewhere (Krisus, as I recall), we translate מגדף alternatively as singing to idolatry. Presumably he doesn’t do so here because it would be redundant with the next action listed.

See the Ran on the first part of the Mishnah, offering two different views of what אינו מופר means here.

87b
The Rosh (printed on 87a) offers an interesting explanation of why the Rabbanan disagree with R’ Yishmael on his read of יקימנו.

The Ran offers two approaches to understanding R’ Meir’s stance. It would appear that his second approach would make R’ Meir’s opposition apply to the רישא as well as the סיפא.

See the wildly divergent approaches of the Ran and the Rosh on the Gemara’s goal in bringing in עיר מקלט.