There were, but as individual cases and not as a public phenomenon; my question was about the phenomenon…?

I haven’t done statistics, but there were quite a few of each type in both cases.
Beyond that, as is known, Ashkenazim are stricter than Sephardim in the Jewish laws of desecration of God's name and self-sacrifice (there are several disputes between the Tosafists and the sages of Spain on these matters).

In Spain and Portugal, the number of conversos reached about one hundred thousand, a phenomenon with no parallel in Ashkenaz.
The Rivash rules (sec. 11) that someone coerced into idolatry, although this falls under “be killed rather than transgress,” if he did transgress, he is not disqualified from testimony, since he acted under compulsion and from fear of death, for “the Merciful One exempts one under duress.” And what Maimonides wrote, that an apostate is disqualified from testimony—that refers to an apostate by choice and not under coercion. Is “be killed rather than transgress” an example of leniency on the part of a Sephardic halakhic decisor?
Is idolatry “as if” really called idolatry?

I’m no expert, but I think there’s a difference between Islam and Christianity here, no?

Dear K, there is a difference; the question was about Christianity and not about Islam (though conversion to Islam also deserves discussion…).

With God's help, 22 Tammuz 5780

In Ashkenaz there was a fairly continuous legacy of riots and blood libels beginning in the 11th century. There was psychological preparation and a solid tradition of coping with these frequent situations.

In Spain, aside from a brief eruption in the middle of the 12th century, there had been no historical experience of riots and libels at all, and when the forced-conversion riots of 1391 were inflicted on the Jews of Spain, they were completely unprepared.

A second problem in Spanish Jewry in the 14th century was the strong influence of Aristotelian philosophy, which erred in thinking that God does not care about human actions, and that all religions are a “sacred fiction” that may help reinforce ethical behavior, but in truth there is no real difference whether you are Jewish or Christian. With such a worldview, it is hard to sacrifice one’s life.

And finally I’ll note that in Ashkenaz too, during the massacres of 1096, there were entire communities that were forced to convert, for example the community of Regensburg, but fortunately for the coerced converts of Ashkenaz, the emperor allowed them to return to Judaism within a short time. By contrast, the coerced converts of the 1391 riots in Spain were not allowed to return to Judaism, and their momentary failure became “a cause for weeping for generations.”

Regards, Shtz

It’s worth looking at Professor Avraham Grossman’s article, “Sanctification of the Divine Name in the 11th and 12th Centuries: Between Ashkenaz and the Lands of Islam,” on the Matach website.

A phenomenon common nowadays is that Sephardim take off the kippah more easily, and also put it back on naturally; in contrast, Ashkenazim find it harder to leave, and if they do leave—they won’t return quickly.
Of course, it may be that it’s only society that causes this.

I apologize if someone [Ashkenazi or Sephardi] doesn’t like this. Benjamin—is this what you were aiming at? If so, you got it, even if not from Rabbi Michi.

For the sanctification of God's name? They died for principles. Just like today Europeans in America are willing to die or kiss Black people’s feet over the principle of BLM.

Where does that come from?
In general, the more self-confident a person is, that basically indicates that he has a stronger drive of pride.

What do you think of the following explanation: suffering and death for the sanctification of God's name among Ashkenazim originated in an ancient Christian practice whose essence was to die a martyr’s death as proof of the superiority of the faith and of God, a practice adopted by the Jews. Likewise, the messianic stance and the belief in the resurrection of the dead strengthened the willingness to suffer and die for the sanctification of God's name. All this in contrast to the rationalism in Sephardic communities, which recoiled from choosing death as an option by undermining belief in the resurrection of the dead… ?

Sources for study and further inquiry (especially for Shtz?):
Katz, Between Jews and Gentiles, 97.
Gerson Cohen, Studies in the Variety of Rabbinic Cultures
Simonsohn, Apostolic See and Jews: History 257-262
Haym Soloveitchik, “Between the Rope of Arabia and the Red Rope”: The Sanctity of Life and Defiance unto Death, in Studies in Memory of Amir Yekutiel, editors Isaiah Gafni and Aviezer Ravitzky, 149-152.

P.S.: I already mentioned above that in Spain and Portugal the number of conversos reached about one hundred thousand, in contrast to the coerced converts in Ashkenaz, whose number reached only a few hundred.

But Decisor, as can be seen, you’re very self-confident yourself, and at least I don’t think that’s necessarily a matter of pride.

Why not?

Benjamin,
To say this was influenced by Christian practice is nonsense in my opinion.
After all, it already says in the halakhic decisors and in the Talmud that one must be killed rather than transgress over idolatry. And according to many decisors, if not most of them, conversion to an idolatrous religion, even if only in speech and under pressure, falls into that category.
So why look for foreign influences in everything?

Rational(ish), in my question I’m asking about death in general, not necessarily at the hands of gentiles. Is murder included in dying for the sanctification of God's name? It is well known that the great majority of Ashkenazim killed one another for the sanctification of God's name and did not wait for the gentiles to kill them—be killed and kill rather than transgress?

With God's help, 23 Tammuz 5780

To Benjamin, let me say—

Self-sacrifice in the face of decrees of forced conversion existed among the Jewish people long before “Christian practices.”

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were cast into the fiery furnace because they refused to bow to the idol, and Daniel was cast into the lions’ den because he refused to stop praying by royal decree. Mordechai endangered himself by refusing to kneel and bow to Haman, and Esther endangered herself by approaching Ahasuerus unlawfully to plead for her people.

In the days of the decrees of Antiochus, the pious gave their lives to keep God’s commandments, and the Hasmoneans risked their lives in war against enemies more numerous and stronger than they. Following them, Jews endangered themselves in revolts against the Romans, who were stronger than they. And during the decrees of forced conversion around the Bar Kokhba revolt—the decree against circumcision (which in Dio Cassius’s view preceded the revolt and sparked it), and the decrees that came after the revolt was suppressed—Jews gave their lives so as not to violate their faith.

Because of the bitter historical experience, rabbinic literature contains halakhic discussions about when one must give up one’s life for the sanctification of God's name and when not. Distinctions are made between the three severe transgressions and the other transgressions, between private and public circumstances, between cases for their own benefit and cases intended to force abandonment of the faith, and between “a time of persecution” and ordinary situations.

In short:
The issue of self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God's name is present in Jewish life, as a derivative of the situations of decrees of forced conversion that gentile hatred brought upon them.

And as I explained above: in the lands of Ashkenaz, riots and blood libels were a frequent factor in their lives for many centuries, and a solid tradition of coping with them emerged. Upon the Jews of Spain, the 1391 riots descended after centuries in which nothing of that sort had happened.

Another factor was that the 1391 riots were popular mob violence. They probably thought that when the king returned and restored order to the chaos, he would allow those coerced to convert to return to Judaism (as had happened in the 11th century in Ashkenaz). The situation in which those forcibly converted during riots were not allowed to return to Judaism was something entirely new and without precedent. No one could have foreseen that a momentary surrender to the rioters would become “a cause for weeping for generations.”

Regards, Shtz

Decisor, because if you’re aware that the forcefulness of the opinion comes from a drive of pride, then you don’t think that forcefulness is justified, and then there’s also nothing to be proud of in your own eyes. And if you mean that he’s lying and knows that the opinion is really shaky, but outwardly presents it as solid in order to mislead people into supposedly believing that he understood something deep, and from that he draws certainty—then indeed, fine (but that’s not how I understood you at first).

One can’t compare Ashkenaz with Spain. In Spain, a decree was imposed all at once on all the Jews in the country, so there was a need to formulate one policy. In Ashkenaz, it was over an entire period, each time in a different place, so there’s no comparison.
The fact that there are laws of self-sacrifice in the Talmud doesn’t mean there were no outside influences. The outside influences probably did exist, at least in the question of which interpretation of the Talmudic sources each side adopted.

Rabbi Michi, on the contrary: for centuries, suicide and the killing of fellow Jews for the sanctification of God's name were a policy from which very few, truly “select individuals,” deviated. The geographic distance was apparently meaningless, as can actually be seen from this identical practice throughout northwestern Europe…

With God's help, 22 Tammuz 5780

The idea of suicide in order not to fall into the hands of marauding gentiles could have been learned from Saul’s suicide so as not to fall into the hands of the Philistines, regarding which they said in Bereishit Rabbah on the verse “But for your blood of your lives”: “One might think even like Saul; therefore Scripture says: ‘But.’” And also from what is mentioned in Gittin 57 about the children who were captured for disgrace and jumped into the sea so that their captors would not rape them.

On the halakhic level there was a dispute between the sages of Ashkenaz and France whether this was permitted. Sources can be found by the interested reader in Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neria’s article, “The Suicide of the Men of Masada in Jewish Law” (available online). In practice, the issue was not resolved in the study hall. Jews who stood before the rioters feared falling into their hands and suffering horrific abuse, or being forced into Christianity and lost from the Jewish people, and the natural reaction of some of them was to prefer a quick death by their own hand over a tortured death or a life of torment at the hands of those who hated them.

Anyone who has not stood in such a terrible situation ought not try to be judgmental—not toward those who chose to escape torture by suicide, and not toward those who converted in order to escape those infernal torments. As the sages said, “Do not judge your fellow until you have reached his place.”

Regards, Shtz

In Professor A. Grossman’s opinion, in his article “Sanctification of the Divine Name in the 11th-12th Centuries: Between Ashkenaz and the Lands of Islam” (on the Matach website), the influence of the book Josippon, which was considered authoritative among Ashkenazi Jews and which brings the story of the collective suicide of the men of Masada, also helped lead some Ashkenazi Jews to decide to commit suicide rather than fall into the hands of the rioters.

I also noted from this article the fact that there were also entire communities (such as the community of Regensburg) that preferred to convert outwardly so as not to be slaughtered, and in the end Emperor Henry IV allowed them to return to Judaism after a short time (which the coerced converts of the 1391 riots in Spain did not merit…).

Popper.

The fact that you recognize that you are hungry while you are going to eat does not make you not hungry. What you recognize are only the results of the hunger. You never recognize the impulse itself. A person cannot encounter his drives directly.

What ultimately determines whether something is correct is not the level of confidence or lack of confidence, but reality.
So it makes no difference at all where it comes from.
Things always stem from drives, and therefore a priori every person is suspect of being mistaken—unless it becomes clear that he says fewer and fewer incorrect things.
If in truth the only drive were pride, then a person would be trapped in falsehood from the outset with no ability to detach from it. But in the end, a person has many drives. So it may be that a person knows true things, and the drive of pride hangs onto lofty branches thanks to the fact that other drives kick him every now and then out of his grip on falsehood. One should mention the drive of envy in this context, without which it would not be possible to learn anything at all.

Dear Shtz, the “suicides” were mostly not “death by one’s own hand” but death with the assistance of allies, such as: a man killing his wife and a woman her husband, a woman killing her children, and a man turning his sword against his brother… Too bad you’re ignoring this important point…
Do you know how many members the community of “Regensburg” had?

For a comparison between the relative tolerance in the lands of Islam and the fierce hatred, persecutions, and riots in Christian lands—see H. H. Ben-Sasson, History of the Jewish People in the Middle Ages, pp. 31-46. On the roots of sanctification of God's name in early Ashkenaz, see Professor Avraham Grossman’s article in the book The Sanctity of Life and Defiance unto Death, pp. 99-130.

Regards, Shtz

Shtz, your references have nothing to do with the matter at hand!!!

To Benjamin, let me say—

I referred you several times to Professor Avraham Grossman’s article, “Sanctification of the Divine Name in the 11th-12th Century: Between Ashkenaz and the Lands of Islam” (on the Matach website), printed in Pe'amim 75 (1998), pp. 27-46.

If you had bothered to look at it, you would have found an answer to your questions in chapter 5 (the attitude toward aggadah) and chapter 7 (the connection to the heritage of the Land of Israel). For the convenience of those too lazy to look at the source, I gave the gist of it—the influence of the aggadah about the children who jumped into the sea so as not to be raped to disgrace, and the influence of the story in Josippon about the mass suicide of the men of Masada. Regarding the community of Regensburg as a large and important community—see there, at the end of chapter 4.

As for one person helping another commit suicide in order to avoid a death of torture—one could also mention Saul’s request of the Amalekite to kill him to shorten his suffering. Obviously, someone who fell into the hands of the rioters would “merit” a death in terrible agony, or be forced to live in no less severe agony as a coerced convert among those who hated him bitterly. So with all the halakhic problematic involved, I completely understand why people preferred to give their loved ones the less brutal option.

Regards, Shtz.

Shtz, I know the source, don’t worry.
How can it be that the aggadah influenced the Ashkenazim but did not influence the Sephardim?
Are you referring to “murder” as a halakhic problem? (Shocking!!!)
How many Jews lived in that large and important community?

For line 2 — see the above article, chapter 5.
For line 3 — see my previous comment, paragraph 3, line 2, and chapter 7 of the above article.
For line 4 — see the end of chapter 4 of the above article.

Regards, same as above

Shtz, I warmly recommend that you read the books I mentioned in my comment above. Some of them are indeed in English, but you may be able to find a Hebrew translation… Best of luck.

And the summary of Soloveitchik and Bernard Lewis is found in Grossman, in the above article, chapter 1, but in chapters 2-7 more decisive considerations are clarified.

Regards, Shtz

By the way, they probably “reversed the order”: the Christians took self-sacrifice from Judaism; compare Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Mordechai and Esther, the pious, and the Hasmoneans, all of whom of course predated Christianity.

Though it may be that the Christians also learned self-sacrifice from Socrates, who did not accept the offer of escape—he taught the Hellenistic world that there are situations “greater than life.” Incidentally, Fourth Maccabees proves from the self-sacrifice of the mother of the Jews in the days of the decrees of Antiochus the superiority of reason over life.