What does it mean that he has a role—did anyone ask me whether I’m interested in it? The question is: who granted my Creator the right to force me to live and fulfill this role? If I create a robot with consciousness and free choice, would I be morally entitled to force it to do what I want—even if it would prefer to smash itself?

The only one who permitted suicide because of extreme suffering was Besamim Rosh, which turned out to be a forged responsa collection by one of the early Reform figures who wanted to promote his views. See Jacob Katz on this subject.

And in any case, he certainly did not actually permit suicide, but more offered a defense after the fact.

M, as I vaguely recall, sometimes in Rabbi Y’s classes they do cite it in lomdus, in the spirit of “respect it but suspect it.”

Because those who reinforced the forgery claim were the scholars, and they too are treated with “respect but suspect.” But in truth there is no doubt at all that this is a forgery, even without mentioning how baffling the responsum itself is.

Boaz, who’s asking you? You were created, and that is your role. You don’t want to? That’s your problem. Whoever creates something has rights over it, and certainly one who created the whole world.
Besamim Rosh was recognized as a forgery, although there are later authorities who cite it (including some who know about the problems with it). But there are other halakhic decisors, even in our own time, who permit this. You can see some sources here:
http://www.dintora.org/print_page/articles/4
I seem to recall there is also a statement by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in that direction, but I don’t have time to look for it right now.

Michi, at least the sources brought in the attached article specifically are ones I know, and as I understand it, those who permit there only did so because of desecration of God’s name or for other reasons (someone who is going to die anyway for certain and is in torment), and not simply because of suffering—and that was exactly my point. I’m not familiar with the statement by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

In Birkei Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 345:3:
“5. If one kills himself because he fears he will come to severe tortures, in the manner of the gentile courts, which torture with great tortures, this does not have the status of one who intentionally destroys himself. As Tosafot wrote in chapter HaNizakin (57b, s.v. ‘they jumped’) regarding the boys and girls who jumped into the sea, because they feared suffering. Beit Lechem Yehuda.”
And see there in the notes that some disagreed with him and interpreted it to mean that in his assessment he would in the end die anyway. And other halakhic decisors wrote similarly.

And similarly Arukh HaShulchan there wrote:
“Go and learn from righteous Saul, who fell on his sword so that the Philistines would not abuse him; and the like is called coerced.”

In general, the distinction here between ideal ruling and after-the-fact is problematic. After all, even the permission being discussed is when the person is under compulsion (the fear of suffering is very great and he cannot endure it). In such a situation he is in any case considered coerced, and therefore they eulogize him. If so, what does it mean to say that it is forbidden to him? The permission is because of coercion. Nobody is saying there is no prohibition here at all. There’s room to analyze this, but in my opinion the difference is mainly conceptual/Talmudic and not significant.

I understand you have nothing more to explain, but I’ll try anyway:
Why exactly, if someone creates something, does he have rights over it? You caused me to exist and I do not want that—by what right do you force me to continue existing?
If a scientist clones a person, will he have the right to treat him as a slave? Why? Why???
Do parents who bring a child into the world have the right to force him to fulfill a role they decided on, just because they brought him into the world? Can they tell him: since we brought you here, from now on your whole life is enslaved to us???
Granted, as for bringing me into the world, one can understand that since I did not exist there was no need to consult me about my consent. But once I exist, to force me to stay because that’s what He feels like, and because He has a role to assign me—for what conceivable reason?

[P.S. One can also ask about man’s control over animals—what moral right do they have? If not for the fact that the Creator permitted it to us in the Torah, I do not know what would justify imprisoning them and using them not necessarily according to their wishes.]

That’s how. That’s how. And that’s how. See my article on gratitude:

הכרת טובה: בין מוסר לאונטולוגיה

Be well.

One who intentionally destroys himself—this should count as “be killed rather than transgress.” 🙂

No, but morality itself, in a place where there is no obligation to do so—“such a person is liable for his own life” (Maimonides, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah).

I didn’t understand the comparison. A person who creates a tool creates it with a certain intention (the tool has a purpose and function). And we have no idea what the intention (purpose) of our creation is.
Did you guess what it is?
Neither in the Torah nor in the words of the Sages is there even a hint of an answer. (Aside from “so that your days may be prolonged.”) It would have been more comfortable for man not to have been created. And this world is nothing but a corridor.
In my humble opinion, this is the strongest difficulty against the whole structure of Judaism (and not only that).

The goal of every person is to make the world a better place. That is clear.
The question is what “better” means. That’s where the argument is.

Some think that sitting in yeshiva and becoming a great scholar no matter what makes the world a better place.
Some think that holding the office of prime minister no matter what makes the world a better place.
Some think that accumulating assets for themselves makes the whole world a better place.

About all of these and the like, the prophet says:
“Thus said the Lord: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches. But let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness in the earth; for in these I delight, says the Lord.”

That is, man’s purpose is to know and understand what this is, and then to practice lovingkindness, justice, and righteousness.

Gershom,
I didn’t say I know, nor that one needs to know. I only claimed that there is one.
I don’t see any difficulty here, only at most a question, and I also don’t see any connection to Judaism. Oh, and I also don’t know of any structure that Judaism built, but maybe it did so secretly so it wouldn’t have to pay municipal tax.
If that’s the strongest difficulty, we’re in great shape.

To The Last Decisor: the world will exist—so what? Why should the Holy One care, and why should we? “The hidden things belong to the Lord…” Even if that is the purpose, we are far too far from it to hope. It also doesn’t explain the role of Judaism in this.

Dear Michi, what matters in a meaningless world?
Apparently, you are living in your bubble and don’t know what’s going on outside. Human beings do not excel in their wisdom; they simply drift along, and for the most part they make things worse and harm others.
A gentile’s life chart (an assimilated Jew in general): childhood games, teenage loves, studies, marriage, work, birth, despair, old age, death. I have lived almost all my life among gentiles or gentile-like Jews; for the most part they are satisfied with drifting along, others with searching for money and honor…

A Torah-observant person’s life chart (a serious one): encounter with the great, mighty, and awesome King, studies, disappointment, marriage… (everything goes to one place).
I cannot understand why you bother to think and share your thoughts at all if that’s the case.

I meant that Judaism is a kind of structure (not that it built one). Example: there is one Creator of the world (we don’t know why He created), He addresses human beings by way of prophecy (we don’t know how prophecy works or why He addresses man), He kills and gives life (why)…

Sorry for butting into the discussion,
What is meant in the original answer from a year ago that life “is not his but his Creator’s”?
Surely it is the person who lives his life and has free choice to do as he wishes with whatever he wants, so how is life not his?…

Gershom,
For someone who truly doesn’t care about making the world a better place, there is no problem at all if he kills himself. Maybe it is even preferable that way—better for him and better for the world. What’s bad about that?

Many have written at length that one of the good tricks on which capitalism is based (which, in various forms, succeeds empirically in the world in a quite astonishing way) is a system in which what is good for the world is produced by each person mainly taking care of himself. Give me a thousand greedy people rather than sugary do-gooders.

Capitalism is based on each person taking care of himself by thwarting the other person’s attempts to take care of himself.
What is good for you is bad for me.
That leads to a worse world.

What?

Y,
He also has free choice to commit suicide, but it is forbidden. What isn’t clear here?

I wasn’t referring to the part that according to the Torah there is a prohibition against suicide. Rather, I didn’t understand what you meant by the expression “life is not his but his Creator’s,” on the basis of which you explained the prohibition against suicide. For one could, for example, think that there is a prohibition against suicide even without that claim, just as you would not argue that one must put on tefillin because life is not his but his Creator’s… rather, one must put on tefillin because it is a command of God (for example).

Likewise, I did not understand in what sense the word “ownership” applies here regarding the Creator’s ownership of human beings, when human actions—and above all their freedom and free choice—seem to show that the ownership is דווקא theirs and not the Creator’s. (Just like the modern use of the expression “my body is mine and not yours.”)

I didn’t understand the question. There is a prohibition against suicide, and the basis of the prohibition is that my life is His and entrusted to Him, not to me.

What does “the basis of the prohibition” mean? The reason for the verse, so it’s nicer to understand? Or a logical inference and no verse is needed (apparently there is the verse “You shall not murder”), or the legal definition, or something new? Is there any practical difference resulting from what the basis of the prohibition is? As for the matter itself, if you could explain more: why should life be different from grapes, where one could say the grapes are His and entrusted to Him and not to me? (And if you say grapes, one can learn from verses that they were permitted, one could say then make an inductive analogy from grapes to life—and to dried grapes—and what is the difference?)

The reason for the verse. There is no difference at all between life and grapes. The grapes are His and life is His, and therefore He determines what will be done with them. It’s just that with grapes this is obvious, and with life there are people who have trouble with it. That’s all.

With God’s help, Saturday night, “and man became a living soul,” year 81

Rabbi David Auerbach nicely said that life is like grapes, and both are the property of the Creator of the world. But I would add one point: also in terms of taste and meaning, life is similar to grapes. Every tiny moment has its own special value and meaning. And like a grape—small as it is—it can be sweet and refreshing.

With blessings,
S. Tz.

And this was Adam’s success: even though because of his wife he stumbled and was expelled from the Garden of Eden, he knew how to appreciate her despite everything, as being “the mother of all living.” And this is the “taste of life” in Coca-Cola—to take something bitter and black and make it sweet and sparkling 🙂

There is a simple prohibition: “You shall not murder.” There is no difference at all between someone who murders his own body and someone who murders another person’s body.

The conscious part that decides on suicide (a person’s ego) is a tiny little part of the whole of what makes that person a human being. And that “ego” has no right to destroy the entire organism. It is murder in every respect.