The "Holy" Yenuka Goes to Secular Court instead of Bais Din to Shut up his critics

וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם

לפניהם. וְלֹא לִפְנֵי גוֹיִם, וַאֲפִלּוּ יָדַעְתָּ בְדִין אֶחָד שֶׁהֵם דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ כְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַל תְּבִיאֵהוּ בְעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶם, שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא דִּינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי גוֹיִם, מְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם וּמְיַקֵּר שֵׁם עֲ"זָ לְהַשְׁבִּיחָהּ, 

The Storm Surrounding the Yenuka’s Legal Move

From moral lectures to the courtroom — the man who consistently preaches that accepting insults serves as atonement for the Jewish people has now turned to the civil courts.

The Yenuka’s decision to file a lawsuit against journalist Israel Fridlis continues to stir widespread astonishment and raise sharp questions about the gap between his words and deeds.

Following a video attached to the post, many followers wonder how someone who teaches his disciples that accepting humiliation is “the greatest gift” and “atonement for the Jewish people” chooses to wage a legal battle in civil court the moment he himself faces criticism.

The question is especially pressing in this tense period of security threats and after the passing of Rabbi Amos, known as “the protector of the generation,” when the Jewish people most need salvation and spiritual atonement.

Critics argue that this is not an innocent act of self‑defense but a carefully planned tactical move.

Its goal, they claim, is to create a smokescreen, intimidate critics, and block negative publications so that followers and the public will not be exposed to materials that cast doubt on his credibility.

Within the Torah world, harsh criticism has also arisen over the very choice to turn to civil courts — a step viewed as a serious halachic violation when done without explicit permission from a rabbinical court.

Conversely, those close to the Yenuka vehemently reject these accusations, asserting that the move — taken only after about a year and a half of silence — is a necessary measure to prevent harm, threats, and incitement against someone they regard as the greatest sage of the generation.

The controversy has sparked a broader discussion about the boundaries between spiritual ideals and practical defense. Is this a legitimate act of protection, or a maneuver meant to silence criticism?