1. Introduction

In recent days, the news of Pope Francis’ passing has stirred grief and reflection in many circles. At the same time, the hesitation of Jewish authorities regarding participation in the funeral services, as they were scheduled on Shabbat, has generated questions, comments, and at times, controversy. It is a discussion that deeply touches the relationship between adherence to Jewish law and the duty to honor significant public figures, even non-Jewish ones.
The issue raises complex, and not new, questions: How far does the Jewish duty toward non-Jews extend in times of mourning? What is the value of symbolic presence in public, religious, or civil contexts? How can the laws of Shabbat be applied in such circumstances?
This contribution does not aim to offer personal judgments, nor to oppose others' decisions, but simply to propose — as I believe a teacher must do — a re-reading of classical sources and halakhic precedents (halakhah being the corpus of Jewish law), in order to open a space for authentic reflection, far from automatic reactions and ideological confrontations.

2. Honor for the Dead and Consolation for the Mourners

At the heart of Jewish tradition resonate two principles of deep humanity: kevod hamet, that is, the honor due to those who have departed this world, and nichum avelim, the consolation of the mourners. The Talmud (TB Sotah 14a) teaches that these actions are part of gemilut chasadim, acts of kindness that know no measure, and that emulate the ways of the Divine Transcendence itself:
"Just as He comforts the mourners, so shall you comfort them; just as He buries the dead, so shall you bury the dead."
Thus, honoring the dead and accompanying others in their sorrow is not merely a gesture of civility, but a mitzvah, a mandatory responsibility, reflecting the Divine image in every human being.

3. The Principle of Darkei Shalom and Classical Sources

A dimension that is often overlooked, but is fundamental in Jewish behavior toward non-Jews, is the principle of darkei shalom, the "paths of peace." This is not a vague or poetic phrase, but a codified and binding halakhic principle.
In the Talmud (TB Gittin 61a), it is taught:
"We provide for the poor of the non-Jews together with the poor of Israel, we visit their sick as we do the sick of Israel, we bury their dead as we do the dead of Israel, for the sake of the paths of peace (mipnei darkei shalom)."
This passage is explicitly incorporated into one of the foundational texts of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 151:12), which, although in a slightly less imperative tone ("it is permitted," suggesting it is a concession), also adds:
"We honor and console their mourners, for the sake of the paths of peace."
While the tone of the Shulchan Aruch may imply more permission than obligation, Maimonides writes more strongly:
"The Sages commanded us to visit their sick and to bury their dead alongside the dead of Israel."
(Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 10:12)
Other medieval sources, such as the Rashba and the Ritva, emphasize how this duty becomes even more important in times of hostility and tension, likely as a means to prevent further conflicts and deterioration of relations with the non-Jewish world.
The 19th-century Turkish scholar R. Chaim Palache expands upon the teaching of the Shulchan Aruch, adding that if the deceased held particular public or political significance, there is an additional obligation to accompany their funeral for the sake of the peace of the kingdom (Chaim Biyad 125: met leveya).
We will not delve into the often interesting differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic rabbinic literature on this topic, which sometimes reflect the different positions of Jewish communities in various regions. Nevertheless, the described practice has always been the prevalent Jewish custom.
The participation of rabbis in the funerals of public figures is nothing new. Rabbi Elio Toaff ז״ל was present at the funerals of Italian figures such as President Pertini. Rabbi Joseph Sitruk ז״ל, Chief Rabbi of France, attended Pope John Paul II's funeral in 2005. Similarly, other rabbinic figures acted accordingly.
Naturally, even when physical participation is not possible, there are symbolic forms of respect: official letters, delegations, public statements. These are all ways in which the rabbinic world has historically recognized the value of interfaith and civil respect.
The crucial point, in my view, is that halakhah here does not require these acts despite the fact that they involve non-Jews, but precisely because living together demands a form of moral and civic responsibility rooted in the dignity of the other. The relationship with the non-Jewish world is not merely pragmatic or political: it is ethical.
In more recent times, Rabbi J. Sacks emphasized that this duty even extends to those whom Judaism regarded as idolaters:
"Unlike the laws regarding the resident alien, these do not presuppose acceptance of the Noahide code. They are not limited to neighbors with whom we share fundamental principles of ethics and faith. The 'paths of peace' apply even to idolaters—those who oppose everything we believe. Yet the Sages ruled that we have fundamental responsibilities toward them: not only the negative duty not to harm, but the positive duty to do good. We must provide them with food when they are hungry, financial support when they are poor. We must visit them when they are sick and comfort them when they are in mourning."
(J. Sacks, To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, London: Continuum Books, 2005, p. 102)
The implication is that we are not mere spectators. If our presence can bring honor, peace, and mutual recognition, it fully belongs among Jewish duties—not only toward individuals but toward the world and the image of Judaism projected into the world. This holds even more true on occasions of public mourning for figures of international spiritual relevance.

4. The Issue of Shabbat

One of the arguments raised regarding Jewish participation in the Pope’s funeral is the fact that it will be held on Shabbat. This is a serious issue, but not without solutions.
Certainly, it is forbidden to violate Shabbat. However, in contexts where no Shabbat prohibitions are transgressed—such as attending by foot and avoiding signing guestbooks or similar acts—and where attendance has strong value in promoting social peace, interfaith respect, and Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the Divine Name through human actions), there is room for discussion.
It should also be noted that since the deceased is not Jewish, there is no obligation of Shabbat observance for the funeral arrangements.
There remains the issue of the violation of Oneg Shabbat (the joy and serenity of Shabbat), which might be disrupted by attending a funeral. In reality, if the deceased was a beloved individual, the grief of their loss is already present, and attending the funeral could even provide a degree of comfort. If instead it concerns a public figure with whom there were no close personal ties (and whose funeral absence could harm the image of the Jewish community), then there is not a true violation of Oneg Shabbat, since the emotional component is certainly different.
Thus, the tension with Oneg Shabbat is real but not insurmountable. If the action is discrete and based on mutual respect, it can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
As often occurs in Jewish legal matters, the task is to balance values: kevod haberiyot (honor due to all creatures), darkei shalom (paths of peace), kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the Divine Name), and Oneg Shabbat (Sabbath joy). None should be ignored, and the rabbinic duty is to find an appropriate synthesis.

6. Balancing Values

Halakhah is a rigorous but not rigid system; it is a process that often requires balancing principles in tension.
In this case, the decision whether to participate symbolically or otherwise in a papal funeral on Shabbat—or in other delicate circumstances—calls into question central and differing values.
The presence of Jewish authorities at public mourning events for prominent figures can be perceived as an honor for Judaism and its values, thus a Sanctification of the Name. Absence, on the other hand, could be interpreted as indifference or sectarianism, especially by those who lack access to the complexity of the normative reasoning.
The principles of "paths of peace" and "honor toward all creatures" remind us of the importance of gestures of respect and closeness toward the non-Jewish world, especially at sensitive moments such as illness and death, for honoring the human being reflects the Divine image in every creature.
In making public decisions, we must always ask ourselves what message we are transmitting to civil society and to our neighbors. Jewish identity is not protected by systematic separation, but by coherence of values, combined with humanity.

7. Final Reflections

As with many issues in the Jewish world, there is no single answer to this matter. Rabbinic authorities, today as in the past, must confront new, public, and often polarized contexts.
In the face of a pontiff’s passing, silence or presence, message or absence, all become eloquent acts.
The invitation here is certainly not to infringe upon Halakhah, but to reflect on its depth and its capacity to guide Jewish life not only in ritual details but also in major moral decisions.
Coherence is fundamental, but it must not become dogmatic rigidity.
In difficult public moments, representing Judaism with dignity often means finding the right voice, a sober gesture, a word that offers comfort without cultural or identity concessions.
Judaism has always faced the challenge of being faithful to itself without closing itself off from the world.