Court Orders Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak and Shofar Association to Compensate Woman for Defamation and Privacy Violations

The Small Claims Court in Hadera partially ruled in favor of a woman who sued Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak, his son Eliyahu Yitzhak, and the Shofar Association for defamation and invasion of privacy. The court found that certain statements made during Rabbi Yitzhak's lectures and distributed through the association's channels included defamatory remarks and breaches of the plaintiff's privacy.

The case involved four separate incidents where the plaintiff and her husband were mentioned in live lectures and later published on the Shofar Association’s website and social media. One key finding was that Rabbi Yitzhak read aloud personal emails sent by the plaintiff’s husband, which contained private family details, without consent, constituting a serious privacy violation. Another publication accused the plaintiff’s husband of bigamy, which the court ruled was not defamatory toward the plaintiff but still an invasion of privacy.

The court rejected one claim that Rabbi Yitzhak said "marrying someone like that is a problem," due to insufficient evidence. Additionally, statements made by a woman named Ruth Bornstein at a Shofar conference, accusing the plaintiff and her husband of "spreading poison," "inciting," and "harming people," were deemed defamatory. Responsibility for these publications was attributed to Rabbi Yitzhak, his son, and the association, as the content was broadcast live and subsequently shared on their media platforms.

Judge Yifat Ungar Biton dismissed the defendants’ defenses of truth and good faith, stating some statements were unprovable and published in a humiliating and degrading manner. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff 22,000 shekels in compensation, 10,000 for the email reading, 5,000 for the bigamy-related privacy breach, and 7,000 for the defamatory remarks by Bornstein, plus 2,500 shekels in legal costs.

The court noted it lacked authority to order removal of the publications or a public apology but warned that continued availability of the content could lead to further legal claims. The Shofar Association responded that the small claims court ruling was limited and that a parallel case is ongoing in the Magistrate’s Court involving the plaintiff’s husband. They stated they respect the ruling and are considering an appeal on the accepted parts of the decision.