Q&A: Demonstrations Yes and Funerals No?
Demonstrations Yes and Funerals No?
Question
From what I roughly understood, the argument between the brilliant Amit Segal and Dana Weiss, may her merit protect her, is whether after a law has been enacted, there is any possibility of challenging it, even if the challenge stems from logical reasons.
In both cases, funerals and demonstrations, the reality is the same, and then constitutionalism comes along and changes the rules, despite the danger to life in both.
A demonstration is a high-order need, the apple of the democratic person’s eye (which is why it was legally permitted), and therefore it will be held even if it costs human lives. A funeral is an ordinary need, and it is not meant to provoke a certain public, and the proof is that even for secular people it was allowed only up to 20 people.
Does the Rabbi agree with this claim?
Answer
If there is some question here, then please explain this gibberish that appears here, for heaven’s sake.
Discussion on Answer
Can you make it any more tendentious? Maybe it could have been phrased as: is stupidity preferable to intelligence? Now that would already be a balanced dilemma.
No.
With God’s help, 21 Shevat 5781
A law that permits demonstrations in an open area but forbids such gatherings for a religious or family purpose is a discriminatory law, and therefore according to Maimonides in chapter 11 of the Laws of Theft it is not “the law of the kingdom is law” but rather sheer extortion, and it has no halakhic validity.
However, leave aside “the law of the kingdom is law”—after all, gathering without keeping distance and wearing masks raises a concern of danger to life, as most of the great sages of our generation have ruled, including Rabbi Y. Sheiner of blessed memory.
What might be a practical difference is people who are already vaccinated: according to the law gatherings are still forbidden, but from the standpoint of concern for danger to life there is no obstacle to their gathering. And perhaps indeed the participants in the funerals of Rabbi Y. Sheiner and Rabbi M. D. Soloveitchik were among those who had already been vaccinated.
Best regards, Yaron Fischl Ordner
With God’s help, 22 Shevat 5781
In practice, it is very difficult to limit the participation of crowds at a funeral. A funeral is not an event that you plan in advance and send invitations to. When it happens—it happens unexpectedly, and then everyone who feels that the deceased was his “spiritual father” feels that “the sun has set at noon” and goes out in heartbreak to part from the one who had been to him as a father and mother.
It seems that one cannot prevent students from flocking to accompany their spiritual father. What perhaps can be done is to announce and supervise that they wear masks and keep distance between one person and another.
This may perhaps be a model for all conduct in coronavirus situations. It is not realistic to “stop life,” and if that is demanded, there is a strong chance the public will not be able to abide by the decree. What is realistic is to plan events in the safest possible way.
Best regards, Y. F. O.
Honestly, I also read it again and it’s not all that clear…
Is the law able to override common sense?
Legally, demonstrations are permitted even with 10,000 people, but funerals are limited to 20.
Epidemiologically, that is, naturally-logically, there is no difference between them. If one is forbidden, so is the other.
The claim of the media people is that constitutionality overrides common sense.
Does the Rabbi agree with that claim?