Fredrika Shavit v. Rishon Lezion Jewish Burial Society

private law. However, due to the nature of their work, they have
transformed into dual-character bodies, subject to private law and also to
principles of public law. President Shamgar said in Kestenbaum [6] (at
484) that the role of the Jewish burial society is “… essentially public,
both formally and as part of its character …” The nature of the activities
of the Jewish burial society has not changed; its religious character is an
intrinsic part of its essence, and it brought us to the Gideon-Kestenbaum
ruling.
Indeed, the fact that certain land is owned by a private body does
not in itself exempt that body – always and under all circumstances –
from principles of public law. Private property may have a public
character due to the nature of its use, and this character in itself brings
principles of public law to bear on the [owner – ed.], obligating it. See,
e.g. On [17] supra. See also HCJ 2481/93 Dayan v. Jerusalem District
Commander [18]; A. Dayan-Orbach, Hamodel Hademocrati shel Chofesh
Habitoi [Freedom of Expression] [49] at 422. Certainly, these issues
apply to the Jewish burial society we now address, which is a community
Jewish burial society. In fact, it is the one and only Jewish burial society
in Rishon Lezion.
The Jewish burial society before us will be judged in the same
way as other Jewish burial societies, and laws that relate to other Jewish
burial societies also relate to this one.
The Ruling of the Rabbi of the Jewish Burial Society; Human
Dignity; the Private Domain and the Public Domain
18. The Jewish burial society also claims that it must bow to the
Jewish legal ruling of its chief rabbi and to the orders of the chief rabbi of
Rishon Lezion, and that these rulings forbid it to carve foreign letters and
Gregorian dates of birth and death. This claim is not acceptable to us
either.
First of all, this notion was already discussed in Gideon [1] and