Tz’ela Gez’s funeral was held a few weeks ago. As seen in the footage, Samarian politician Yossi Dagan’s eulogy was interrupted by my sister-in-law’s bereaved sister, who shouted at him for politicizing the event and demanded that he stop speaking and leave the podium. I do not know who arranged the funeral or decided who would eulogize our late sister-in-law. I was surprised, for instance, that neither Tz’ela’s father nor our mutual father-in-law were invited to speak. The night before the funeral, unable to sleep, I began writing what I would say if asked to eulogize Tz’ela. I had those notes in my pocket during the service. When her sister began shouting at Dagan, I was unsure how to respond. In principle, I agreed with her objection to politicizing the event, as I will explain, and I also agreed with parts of Dagan’s message. However, others were clearly in charge, and decisions had been made. Neither my bereaved brother-in-law nor the rabbi advising him intervened, so I chose not to intervene in a situation where my opinion was not sought.
Maimonides writes: “The eulogy is included in the honor due to the deceased. Therefore, we compel the heirs to pay the wages of the men and women who chant the dirges and eulogize him. If the deceased had directed that he not be eulogized, we do not eulogize him. If, however, he directed that he not be buried, we do not heed him, for burial is a commandment, as Deuteronomy 21:23 states: ‘And you shall certainly bury him.’ Anyone who is lax regarding the eulogy due a scholar will not live long. Anyone who is lax regarding the eulogy of an upright person is fit to be buried in his lifetime. And anyone who sheds tears for a decent person—his reward for this is saved by the Holy One, blessed be He.” The Tur and Shulchan Aruch add that the speaker “should raise his voice and recount matters concerning the deceased that break the heart in order to increase the weeping, and to recount the deceased’s praises.”
The sages of the Talmud treated eulogies almost as the property of the deceased. The deceased can forgo them, but if not, the heirs are required to use inherited funds—or even their own money if the deceased left nothing—to pay for proper eulogies. Speakers must ensure they only say what the deceased would have wanted said in their honor. For someone like my late sister-in-law, who was apolitical in life, we must err on the side of caution and avoid political speeches. I am convinced she would not have wanted politicians to eulogize her. However, it was also necessary to use the occasion to rebuke the community, as is the proper Jewish response to calamity. I did not ask to speak because, although I believed my words might benefit Klal Yisrael, they were not entirely free of political undertones. Unlike most speakers, I am not a politician but a family member, yet my words still did not fully meet the narrow requirements of halacha and would have been unfair to her memory. For another individual, such words might have been appropriate, and at a public gathering that was not a funeral, they would certainly need to be said. I only pray that God will heal my voice and allow me to speak these words aloud one day.
When confronted with such a terrible tragedy, it is obligatory for us to look inward. Hananel has been outspoken in his militancy. With his unfortunate newfound fame, he has called out major politicians, especially the prime minister, both imploring and demanding major policy changes. I do not share his sentiments, as I believe that the actions of the prime minister and the regime over the past few decades—such as the Oslo Accords, the intifadas, the Gaza disengagement, the lockdowns, and now the most recent war—are deliberate and part of a plan to harm the Jewish community. So too is this tragedy. Rather than focusing on political demands, we must acknowledge that this calamity has befallen us due to Divine Justice. We must search for the personal and national misdeeds that brought this about, for there is no shortage of such failings to address.
From Jewish Home News, here.