## Facts

- Fredrika Shavit buried her mother in a Jewish cemetery operated by the Chevra Kadisha (Burial Society) of Rishon Le Zion, which runs the cemetery under a state-sanctioned burial framework and under local rabbinic direction.
- Shavit asked to inscribe on the headstone (1) her mother’s name in Hebrew and Latin letters and (2) the dates of birth and death in both the Hebrew calendar and the Gregorian (civil) calendar.
- The rabbi responsible for the cemetery initially refused to allow any non-Hebrew inscription.
- The burial society later agreed to allow the deceased’s first name in Latin letters, but it continued to refuse to allow any Gregorian dates, permitting only Hebrew-calendar dates.
- Shavit filed suit seeking an order requiring the burial society to allow the Gregorian dates on the tombstone.
- The burial society argued that the Right to Alternative Civil Burial Law (Alternative Burial Law) authorized separate civil burial arrangements and therefore removed any duty of Jewish cemeteries to permit non-Hebrew inscriptions such as Gregorian dates.
- The District Court dismissed Shavit’s petition.
- Shavit appealed to the Supreme Court of Israel (Civil Appeal).

## Issues

1. Whether a burial society operating a Jewish cemetery under statutory authorization and regulation is subject to public-law duties when setting cemetery inscription rules.
2. Whether the Alternative Burial Law eliminated or reduced any obligation of Jewish burial societies to accommodate requests to include Gregorian dates on tombstones in Jewish cemeteries.
3. Whether a categorical refusal to allow Gregorian dates on a tombstone unlawfully violates the dignity, equality, and freedom of conscience of the deceased’s family, and how that harm should be weighed against claimed injury to religious feelings and the cemetery’s religious character.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reversed the District Court’s judgment.
- The Court held that the burial society performs a public function within a statutory framework and must act according to public-law standards, including respect for basic rights.
- The Court rejected the argument that the Alternative Burial Law, by itself, freed Jewish cemeteries from accommodating such requests; the statute did not clearly revoke existing protections or justify a blanket refusal in the public burial system.
- The Court ruled that the burial society could not impose a sweeping ban on adding Gregorian dates where the family sought to include them alongside Hebrew dates; the refusal unlawfully infringed the family’s dignity and autonomy in commemorating the deceased.
- The majority concluded that the claimed offense to religious sensibilities did not justify a total prohibition in a public cemetery operated as part of the state burial system, particularly where the religious basis for an absolute ban was not shown to be unequivocal.
- A dissent would have upheld the burial society’s policy, giving controlling weight to the cemetery’s religious nature and the authority of the local rabbinate over practices in that setting.

## Legal Principles

- A formally private body that provides an essential public service under statutory authorization and regulation may be treated, for many purposes, as a public actor and must comply with public-law norms.
- Human dignity extends to end-of-life and post-death contexts, including a family’s interest in memorializing and identifying the deceased in ways that reflect the deceased’s life and the family’s conscience.
- Administrative decisions affecting expression in a public service must be reasonable and proportionate; a categorical ban is suspect when more limited measures could address competing concerns.
- Harm to religious feelings is a recognized consideration, but its weight varies with context; in public spaces and public services, it will not automatically override concrete harm to an individual’s dignity, equality, or conscience.
- A later statute authorizing alternative arrangements does not, without clear language, cancel existing protections in the main public system or justify denying accommodations within that system.

## Conclusion

In *Shavit v. The Chevra Kadisha (Burial Society) of Rishon Le Zion*, the Israeli Supreme Court held that a burial society operating a Jewish cemetery as part of the state-authorized burial system could not categorically refuse to permit Gregorian dates on a tombstone when requested alongside Hebrew dates, because the refusal—grounded in religious objections—unlawfully harmed the family’s dignity and autonomy and was not justified under public-law standards governing a public service.


Shavit v. The Chevra Kadisha (Burial Society) of Rishon Le Zion, C.A 6024/97 (1999)