Local News
Simkin Centre receives $725,000 gift from mysterious donor
By BERNIE BELLAN
(Posted Oct. 29, updated Oct. 30, Oct.31)
On Oct. 21 we received an email from the Simkin Centre informing us that the centre had received a gift of $725,000 from someone about whom they know almost nothing.
This story has now been amended to reflect crucial information that we have obtained about the individual who was responsible for that sizeable donation. If you want to skip to that new information scroll down to the end of this article. If you want to read how the story unfolded – keep reading.
Here is what the email received on Oct. 21 said:
“The Saul and Claribel Simkin Centre PCH Inc. Board of Directors and The Saul and Claribel Simkin Centre Foundation Board of Directors are pleased to share with you the announcement of an unexpected bequest to the Sharon Home in the amount of $725,937 CDN from the Estate of Myer and Corrine Geller of San Diego, California.
“These funds come to the Centre at an opportune time as we are faced with aging infrastructure and equipment, rising costs with freezes or cuts to government funding and ongoing covid related costs that remain unfunded at this time. A portion of these funds (30%) will be used for the immediate needs of the Centre, including support of our fight against Covid-19. The remainder (70%) of the funds will be allocated to the Jewish Foundation of Manitoba to create our new Building Reserve Fund. This fund will help to ensure our ability to maintain our building and equipment on a long term basis. The Simkin Centre is a world class facility and we want to do our best to keep it that way.
“All we know about the Gellers is they had no children and Myer was a 1943 graduate of St. John’s High School (Winnipeg). Further, Mr. Geller went to MIT, became a physicist and was granted several patents.
“We have been unable to determine why we were the recipient of this bequest. We hope sharing this good news with the community may give us some insight into the mystery. We hope that the Gellers’ generosity will inspire others to consider the Simkin Centre in their estate planning.”
Upon receipt of this tantalizing news, we began to investigate who Myer and Corrine Geller were and the possible reason that they had decided to leave such a substantial amount of money to the Sharon Home.
Beyond the information that was divulged in the Simkin Centre press release we were able to determine some further information about the Gellers. We were aided in this process by Don Aronovitch, who is Chair of the Simkin Foundation, and by Don Harrison, publisher and editor of the San Diego Jewish World.
Myer Geller was born in Winnipeg in 1926. Although we are not certain who his parents were, a search of various websites, including Ancestry.ca, has led us to believe that his father’s name was Max Geller. There were several Max Gellers who lived in Winnipeg in the early part of the 20th century. Unfortunately, none of the archival material that we searched led to a definite conclusion who Myer Geller’s parents were. We also contacted Rena Boroditsky of the Chesed shel Emes to see whether the Chesed’s records give the names of next of kin of deceased, but they don’t. We also spoke with Shelly Sklover, funeral director of Etz Chayim Congregation, to see whether their records give the names of next of kin of deceased. (Of the many Gellers who are buried in Winnipeg cemeteries, 49 out of 51 are buried in cemeteries now under Etz Chayim’s management.) Unfortunately that information is also not contained within the Etz Chayim’s records.
We also searched the archives of our own newspaper and were only able to find one reference to Myer Geller – that he had a bar mitzvah in 1939. A search of the Jewish Heritage Centre’s archives also led nowhere, but unfortunately their archives do not give very precise results.
An email from Don Aronovitch, however, shed some more light as to when the Simkin Centre first became aware that a substantial donation was about to come their way:
“In early October 2019, Laurie (Cerqueti, CEO of the Simkin Centre) was notified we were the 11% Beneficiary of the Myer & Corinne Geller estate in San Diego. While fabulous news, it was so much ‘out of the blue, that we wondered if it was legitimate. We were sent a copy of the Will and gradually, the prospect of this bequest being real came into focus. After a long quiet period, as the estate was being settled, a cheque for $550,000 USD arrived in August payable to the Saul & Claribel Simkin Centre Foundation. After the standard waiting period to see if the cheque cleared the banking system, our bank gave us a ‘thumb’s up’ and it became the focus of the Simkin Centre’s planning process.
“Our efforts to determine ‘who these people were’ & ‘why us’ drew a blank. We determined that Myer graduated from St. John’s High School the same year as Gordon Pullan and that Buddy Brownstone was editor of St. John’s Newsletter. However, neither Gordon nor Buddy had recollection of a Myer Geller. Similarly, we were unable to determine Corinne Geller’s maiden name.”
In addition to the information contained in the Simkin Centre email that Myer Geller graduated from St John’s Tech in 1943, we were able to learn that he moved to the United States in 1949, became an American citizen in 1950, and attended MIT from 1951-55. A search of University of Manitoba records did not disclose that Mr. Geller ever attended that university, so it’s a mystery where else he might have gone to school following his graduation from St. John’s.
Myer Geller married Corrine Taper (although her name is spelled Corrin on their marriage record) in 1954 in New York state. At various times the Gellers lived in New York, Pennsylvania, and California.
The Gellers moved to San Diego in 1988, which is where they lived until their deaths – Myer Geller in 2018 and Corrine Geller in 2019.We managed to locate a close friend of the Gellers, someone by the name of Mikahil Melsitov. Mr. Melsitov did not know whether Myer Geller had any living relatives, although he did think that he had a brother. We attempted to contact anyone by the name Geller in Winnipeg to learn whether any of them knew Myer Geller, but our efforts proved fruitless.
During the course of our conversation with Mikhail Melsitov, he also disclosed that his wife, Oxana, was a trustee of the Geller Trust, which donated the $725,000 Cdn. to the Sharon Home. Although Mr. Melsitov was quite friendly during our 20-minute conversation and was willing to give us his wife’s cell number, all attempts to contact her proved futile. Further attempts to contact Mr. Melsitov also led nowhere. (Why did both Melsitovs refuse to respond to our repeated attempts to contact them, we wonder, especially when Mr. Melsitov had been so friendly during our only phone call?) Something that Mr. Melsitov did say that aroused our interest though was that representatives of the Geller Trust had difficulty making contact with the Simkin Centre in August 2019, following Mrs. Geller’s death. Presumably that was because they were trying to contact the Sharon Home. After all, Myer Geller had left Winnipeg 70 years earlier and would he even have been aware that the Sharon Home was now the Simkin Centre?
We also attempted to contact various lawyers who were associated with Myer Geller, none of whom responded to our phone messages or emails. We did discover that the Geller home was sold by their estate for $1.25 million in April of this year. The home was not overly large – only two bedrooms and two bathrooms. (By the way, the taxes were only $2,700 on their home. That gives you an idea how high our city taxes are in Winnipeg compared to other cities – as if you needed to be reminded.)
But if the donation to the Simkin Centre constituted only 11% of the total amount left to all beneficiaries of the Geller Trust, the Geller Trust would have been worth close to $7 million Canadian.
How did Myer Geller amass such a large fortune?
From what we were able to determine he was an inventor of extraordinary ability. Myer Geller’s name is associated with 15 different patents. For at least a certain period of his life he worked for a branch of the US Navy called the Naval Operations Support Centre. We attempted to contact a representative of the NOSC to find out if there was anything we could be told about Mr. Geller, but were unsuccessful.
So, the question that tantalizes is: Why would someone who had left Winnipeg 70 years ago want to leave such a substantial donation to the Jewish nursing home (which is now referred to as a personal care home)?
We asked Don Aronovitch whether the Simkin Centre had searched its records to try to find the name of someone who might have been a relative of Myer Geller?
Don responded: “None that we could find. We had very few leads and they all led to a dead end.”
We commented to Don: “It just seems so strange that 70 years after having left Winnipeg he leaves so much money to the Winnipeg Jewish nursing home – and nobody knows anything about him.”
Don Aronovitch agreed: “Very strange but there is a story there. We just do not yet know what it is.”
If anyone reading this is able to shed some light on Myer Geller please contact this newspaper. We’d love to be able to report at some future date that we solved this mystery.
Post script: Since this story first appeared in the Oct. 28 issue of The Jewish Post & News we have received some very intresting responses from a number of different readers.
One reader said they actually had a copy of the 1943 St. John’s yearbook with Myer Geller’s picture in it. We’re reproduced that photo on this site. The caption accompanying the photo says: “Myer Geller – A good man to have around when scholastics come to the fore, Myer is the fellow who has made the Reserve Army what it is today.”
Then we received an email from another reader who has been fascinated by the story and who contacted a friend who is an ardent genealogist. Their friend did some further digging beyond what I had come up with and sent the following information: “Myer died on 12/30/16. He and Corinne, who was born 2/12/26, bought their house at 1622 Plum St. in San Diego in 1993. He got his degree from MIT in 1955 and in 1960 or 1961 moved from a job at Hughes Products to be a senior scientist at the Solid State Division of Electro-Optical Systems in Pasadena, CA. He was a registered Democrat.”
Updated Oct. 30: Reader Ed Feuer came up with even further information about Myer Geller. In a post to our Facebook page Ed wrote that he had found a reference to Myer Geller in the July 5 archives of the Winnipeg Free Press, in a notice headed “City man receives Massachussetts degree” The body of the notice says: “Myer Geller, son of Mr. and Mrs. M. Geller, 284 Bannerman Avenue, has received his doctor of physics degree from the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Boston. Mr. Geller attended St John’s technical high school and the University of Manitoba. He received his master’s degree in physics at the University of Minnesota.”
There are only two Gellers in Winnipeg whose first names begin with M who could have been Myer Geller’s father – and both had the first name Max. One Max Geller died in 1956, and one in 1966. Unfortunately neither one appears in the Free Press obituary archives. But – we’ve determined that the Max Geller who died in 1956 was married to Dora, who did live in the Sharon Home. But Dora’s obituary makes no reference to a Myer Geller.
The other Max Geller died in 1966. His wife’s name was Sarah (née Feldman). We haven’t been able to find an obituary for either one. The question is: Did either Max or Sarah Geller live in the Sharon Home prior to their death?
Update Oct. 31: We received further information from reader Ed Feuer, who found Max Geller’s obituary notice in the Winnipeg Tribune archives.
Ed confirmed that Myer Geller’s parents were Max and Sarah Geller. He also disclosed that Myer Geller had two sisters: Frances – who was married to an Edward Jordan in Toronto; and Rose – who was married to Louis Lieberman, also of Toronto.
We will attempt to obtain any information about either sister. But, if anyone reading this does have some information that woud be useful, please contact me at jewishp@mymts.net or call me at 1-204-694-3332.
Local News
Epic court battle shaping up between Etz Chayim Congregation and two former members who are now barred from setting foot in Etz Chayim
By BERNIE BELLAN Introduction: This story had originally been posted Friday morning, August 14, with a photo of Etz Chayim Synagogue. Then we received an email from Morissa Granove, COO of Etz Chayim Congregation:
“Hi Bernie.
“This request is not about the article itself but the safety of our shul. We have been advised not to post the address or photos of our Jewish organizations publicly for some time for security reasons. Can I please ask that you change the image posted online (and planned for print if needed) and that in this be kept in mind for the future?
“Thank you so much for your understanding,
“Morissa”
We replied:
“Gee Morissa – I’ll do that but maybe you better ask Google to remove any mention of any Winnipeg synagogue because all anyone has to do is do a Google search and they’ll come up with a complete list of Winnipeg synagogues and their addresses – also photos! Do you want me to contact Google for you? Can’t be too careful, can we?
Now, here’s the story as it was originally posted:
The date October 7 carries a huge amount of significance for Jews around the world: It was the date that members of Hamas and other terrorist groups launched a murderous attack on innocent Israelis (and members of other nationalities) that resulted in the deaths of more than 1200 people and the abduction of 251 others.
But it is also a date that may have a significance of a different sort come this October 7 when a Winnipeg courtroom will be the scene of a court case in what is shaping up to be a momentous legal battle between Congregation Etz Chayim and two former members of the congregation who have been barred from attending services – or even setting foot inside the building that houses Congregation Etz Chayim.
Before publishing this article I had sent copies to both sides in the dispute – and offered both sides the opportunity to correct any mistakes they might have found in what I had written. I did receive responses from both sides and have incorporated their suggested corrections into what follows.
The two individuals involved at the heart of this dispute are both former longstanding members of Etz Chayim – and before that, Rosh Pina Congregation: Dr. Emet Eviatar (previously known as Hadass), who had been the Torah reader at Etz Chayim for many years, and who had also led Sunday services; and her husband, well known scientist Dr. David Hoult (who played a leading role in the development of MRI technology and was also very active in the congregation). Drs. Eviatar and Hoult have filed suit against CEC over what they claim was the illegal termination of their membership.
In response, however, Congregation Etz Chayim asserts that it was not a question of membership when CEC exercised its right to refuse entry on the advise of the WPS and security experts who were consulted after a deeply concerning letter was received from one of the plaintiffs by the synagogue.
The filings in this particular case are in the hundreds of pages. I spent two recent afternoons at the Law Courts poring over the filings, and photographed pages of what I thought were some of the most relevant issues at hand so that I could quote accurately from those filings.
While the case may seem hugely complicated, given the number of pages of documents that have already been filed, it seems that it boils down to two essential issues: Did CEC violate its own bylaws (or its own constitution, as the case may be, because at the time of the events in question a bylaw which would have governed who might be excluded from belonging to the congregation had not yet been passed) by terminating the memberships of Dr. Emet Eviatar and Dr. David Hoult? The argument advanced by the plaintiffs is not that a congregation cannot decide who can belong to that congregation. Rather, it is an argument that CEC did not properly adhere to its own bylaws in the manner in which it has excluded the plaintiffs from attending – or even setting foot inside Etz Chayim.
But, a second issue in play – and one which is argued forcefully by CEC in one of its briefs is that the argument Emet Eviatar and David Hoult are advancing has no place in the courts in the first place. As is noted in one of the briefs filed on behalf of CEC: “The dispute is, at its core, about the internal governance of a religious congregation. It concerns who may participate in communal worship, who may participate in communal religious life, and how a synagogue governs itself in response to legitimate security concerns. If it is accepted that the dispute was about ideological differences, as alleged by the Applicants, then these are fundamentally religious questions. The court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, and ought not to intervene.”
How the parties arrived at this situation is a complicated – but very interesting story.
I, myself was first made aware that something unusual was going on between CEC and David Hoult when I received this email from Dr. Hoult on Friday afternoon May 30, 2025, at 12:42 pm:
“Hi Bernie,
“I have just had a pair of police officers at the door telling me that we are now banned from Etz Chayim and if we show up the police will be called, no reasons given. I suspect it was an accumulation of things, including a letter I sent.
“Shabbat shalom,
“David.”
Later that afternoon I received another email, this time from a member of CEC, who forwarded me an email that had been sent to congregation members by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC. That email had a letter attached, which said, in part:
“On Tuesday, May 27th, we received deeply troubling correspondence from a member of our community. The nature of this communication raised serious concerns about the safety of our congregants and staff. After careful and deliberate consultation with our Board of Directors, Clergy, the Winnipeg Police Service, the Jewish Security Network, and the Secure Community Network (in partnership with the USCJ), and on their recommendations we have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the membership of this individual and all members of their household, effective immediately.
“These individuals are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities.”
The letter was signed by Morissa Granove, Chief Operating Officer of CEC, and Allan Cogan, President of CEC.
What the heck was going on? I wondered. So, I emailed Morissa Granove that same afternoon:
“Hi,
“I received an email from David Hoult telling me that he is now banned from the Etz Chayim. I assume Emet Eviatar is also banned too, judging by the way your email is worded.
“I don’t know David at all – other than having received a piece he wrote about Israel and Gaza that I published to my website. I can’t begin to imagine what he might have written, but in the interest of fair reporting and fuller disclosure, can you say anything more about what he wrote in his letter?
“-Bernie Bellan
“Publisher,
“jewishpostandnews.ca
“also Associate Editor,
“The Jewish Post Winnipeg”
But, Morissa Granove did not offer any more information as to what might have been contained in that “troubling correspondence” which was received by CEC.
It was only when I went down to the Law Courts on August 10 that I was actually able to see what was in that “troubling correspondence.”
But, before I get into what was in that particular communication, even more background to this strange case is necessary.
In an email I received from CEC COO Morissa Granove following my having sent her a draft of this article, she wrote: “Congregation Etz Chayim …has never taken action based on political views. Further, CEC argues that other members, congregants, and guests share Dr. Eviatar’s views and yet there has never been an issue with their behaviour and as such, Congregation Etz Chayim has never taken action against anyone, revoked a membership, or refused entry to anyone based on their political stance.” Dr. Eviatar, in her own words, notes that she had already provoked the displeasure of some members of CEC, including staff members, by certain of her behaviours while, according to Morissa Granove, “volunteering in a leadership role and officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim. CEC …is ‘a Zionist organization’.”
Yet, according to CEC, Dr. Eviatar’s family’s attendance at Etz Chayim was never in question – until a letter was received from Dr. Eviatar’s husband.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the following is taken from an affidavit given by Emet Eviatar, which might suggest that her membership in CEC had been called into question long before May 2025:
“In July 2024, I co-founded Manitoba Friends of Standing Together, a chapter of the international support network created by Standing Together. Standing Together is a grassroots joint Jewish and Palestinian organization in Israel which was originally created in 2015 to fight for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas they have pivoted to protesting the war in Gaza.
“On October 6, 2024, I appeared as a guest on the local CBC Radio Weekend Morning Show, together with Mr. Ramsey Zeid, president of the Canadian Palestinian Association of Manitoba to discuss the importance of having local conversations between Jews and Palestinians…
“Later that week, I received a phone call from CEC Rabbi Kliel Rose and Cantor Tracy Kasner. They informed me that I would no longer be allowed to lead Sunday services. The rabbi also suggested that ‘for my own peace of mind’ I might want to consider finding another congregation (that aligns with my views.”)
“On November 4, 2024, I received an unsigned letter from CEC which was provided to me by the then executive director, Jonathan Buchwald…
“While the letter contains various false statements, and is clearly a reference to my having contact with Mr. Zeid and others in the local Palestinian community, the assertion that I was aligned with an ‘ideology which is mutually exclusive and contrary to the existence of the Jewish people and the state of Israel’ was extremely offensive and hurtful to my being an Israeli citizen, having family who live in Israel, and having served in the Israel Defence Forces.”
Later, on March 3, 2025, Emet Eviatar appeared a second time on the CBC morning weekend radio show, again with Mr. Zeid.
In an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, Ms. Granove explained the CEC’s objection to Emet Eviatar’s publicly associating with certain individuals while officially representing Congregation Etz Chayim (noting that CEC’s objection bore no consequence to Dr.Eviatar’s or her the family’s membership.)
“This public alignment with parties opposed to Israel raised concern within CEC about potential risks surrounding the Synagogue, especially in times of heightened safety risks and awareness of antisemitic vitriol. These concerns were brought to the attention of Dr. Eviatar. She took no action to mitigate these concerns. As a result, she was removed from a volunteer leadership position she held with CEC. CEC took no action regarding either of the Applicants’ ability to attend the Synagogue as congregants.” In the email I received from Morissa Granove in response to a draft of this article, Ms. Granove added: “Still, her family’s membership was never in question.”
But, in May 2025 something happened that led the CEC to take drastic action against Emet Eviatar, David Hoult and the other members of their household. It should be explained that, according to an affidavit taken from Morissa Granove, who had stepped into the role of Chief Operations Officer of CEC in January 2025, in May 2025 CEC announced it would be adding new security measures, based on a “site security assessment from the Winnipeg Police Service. Officer Constable Justin Remillard (who) attended the Synagogue and provided guidance on improving security.
“Among other things, he advised:
“a) access to the Synagogue should be controlled;
“b) registration and entry lists should be used for programs and services at the Synagogue;”
On May 5, 2025 CEC held its Annual General Meeting. According to an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove, “During discussion relating to security protocols…David Hoult expressed opposition to security procedures such as locked doors at the Synagogue, registration requirements, and screening of visitors.”
The following is taken from an affidavit taken from Ms. Granove: “On May 22, 2025, CEC received a letter from Dr. Hoult. The most significant concern with the letter was that it stated:
‘If, G-d forbid, I wanted to attack the shul on Shabbat morning it would be trivial. A stolen motorbike, onto the lawn, Kalashnikov to shatter the windows, gun down the congregation, drive away, ditch the bike, gun, mask and clothes…” (Emphasis added)
The same affidavit states that, “In that correspondence, he again expressed opposition to security measures and described them as ‘hysteria,’ ‘paranoia,’ and ‘psychologically stupid.’ “
According to an affidavit taken from David Hoult, “My wife and I received no direct communication from CEC advising of the termination of our membership until a cheque with no accompanying letter was received in the mail on June 9, 2025.”
In an email received from Morissa Granove after I sent her a draft of this story she asked that this sentence be inserted: “Congregation Etz Chayim was interviewed extensively by the WPS before going to the home of Dr. Hoult for the service call and had all of the details which were required in order to qualify their actions.”
On September 16, 2025, Hadass (Emet) Eviatar and David Hoult filed an application in Court of King’s Bench to have the termination of their membership declared “null and void,” also seeking an “order to comply with bye-laws” (of the CEC).
In response, CEC asserts that it “has never terminated the Applicants’ membership. Rather the applicants were advised they were no longer permitted to attend the synagogue.” Morissa Granove asked that this be added: CEC “exercised its right to refuse entry on the advice of the WPS and security experts.’
Did it boil down to semantics? I wondered. CEC was saying that it hadn’t “terminated the Applicants’ membership,” yet it returned the cheque they had sent in to pay for renewal of their membership.
However, if it is the CEC’s position that, based on the plaintiffs’ claims as written, this matter is not one that should even be considered by the courts – as is noted at the beginning of this article, then arguments over whether CEC abided by its own bylaws would be moot.
Yet, if the courts might be willing to consider the issue whether CEC did not properly follow its own rules – as set out in its bylaws, then the Eviatar-Hoult case becomes more compelling.
For instance, the issue whether CEC “terminated” the memberships of Dr. Eviatar and Dr. Hoult might take on added importance.
As is noted in a brief for the plaintiffs, the letter sent out by Morissa Granove to members of CEC on May 30, 2025 states quite clearly that “We have made the difficult but necessary decision to terminate the memberships of this individual (Dr. Hoult) and all members of their household effective immediately.”
In this case the plaintiffs (Drs. Eviatar and Hoult) are arguing the nowhere within CEC’s governing constitution (which was adopted in 2014) were there “provisions for the termination of membership.” Therefore, their argument goes, “CEC had no authority to terminate their membership.”
Morissa Granove asked that this be added: “The defendant (CEC), however, argues that the CEC’s governing constitution says that “directors ‘may pass by-laws’ regulating, among other things, ‘the suspension and termination of membership by the corporation and by a member.’ The word ‘may’ is permissive.”
“Thus, CEC is arguing, therefore, that it had no obligation to actually pass a by-law governing the termination of a membership.”
As it was, the by-law was never voted upon, as, according to an affidavit given by Dr. Eviatar, CEC leadership “had not complied with the correct procedure, including giving proper notice.,
However, in her email to me Morissa Granove wrote that “the very same bylaw was passed at a Special General Meeting of the members when Congregation Etz Chayim and its lawyers provided clarity on the proposed changes, which was requested by the members at the conclusion of the AGM to clear up any issue or confusion.”
Further, the letter to CEC members that was sent on May 30, 2025, which said that “These individuals (i.e., Dr. Hoult and any members of his family) are no longer permitted on the premises of Congregation Etz Chayim, nor may they participate in any of our synagogue’s programs or activities” was signed only by the COO and President of CEC.
Whether or not CEC followed proper procedure in whatever happened to Dr. Hoult, Dr. Eviatar, and their other family members will be up to the courts to decide.
But, there is a larger issue at hand. Are there are any rules that might govern how a private organization such as a synagogue should govern itself? And, perhaps even more important, can the courts intervene at all in such a situation?
This case is shaping up to have some fascinating implications.
Local News
Ami Hassan returning as owner of Falafel Place
By BERNIE BELLAN In a surprise move – and after more than a six-year absence as owner of Falafel Place (Corydon at Wilton) the legendary Ami Hassan has decided to return as owner of one of Winnipeg’s most famous eateries.
Long known for his sometimes irreverent attitude to his customers, e.g., “If you’re finished, get out!”, Ami decided to return to running Falafel Place after having retired years ago (or so he thought) from running the Corydon Avenue restaurant.
We asked Ami whether he’ll be sending a special invitation to Julia Roberts to come visit him at Falafel Place. He asked again: “Who’s Julia Roberts?” (Just kidding – he really does know how Julia Roberts is.) Read the story how Ami told her to leave the restaurant and come back later at Julia Roberts turned away from Falafel Place
Ami did note that when customers saw him inside the restaurant one recent day as he was getting it ready for the reopening Monday, August 10, over 20 of them came in asking him if he was open already.
We asked Ami whether the menu will be the same as it was when he last ran the place and he said everything will be the same.
Falafel Place will be open 7 days a week from 7 am – 2 pm. Remember, if you’re finished – get out!
Local News
Bark Mitzvah at the Simkin Centre August 13, 2026
By BERNIE BELLAN On a beautiful summer day at the Simkin Centre residents and family members – along with staff, were treated to a delightful “dog day afternoon” when scores of dogs were brought to the front courtyard outside the centre to celebrate what was titled a “Bark Mitzvah.”
Now, no dogs were called up to the podium to read from the Torah – or even to bark out a blessing, although as I canvassed many owners of dogs that were there – inquiring as to whether their dogs had received any special training for the day, I was pleased to hear that many dogs came from good “Jewish homes” and were good “Jewish” dogs. (I would suppose, in the case of our own dog that would mean that she’s been spoiled rotten.)
Some owners though maintained that their dogs had been brought up quite disciplined – although to be honest none of the dogs that I saw seemed to be be rigorously paying attention to any commands. Most were of the Goldedoodle, Yorkie variety. There was one rescue dog in the midst. It seemed quite confused, surrounded as it was by all those lap dogs.
The entire event was presided over – with great humour, but also a certain amount of seriousness, by Rabbi Matthew Leibl, who explained to the very large audience why having a special day celebrating dogs was entirely consistent with Jewish tradition.
Following is part of the transcription of an interview I conducted with Rabbi Lebil following his remarks explaining why he thought holding a “Bark Mitzvah” would be a good event to have. (You can watch the entire video at the end of this story. But where there was a great deal of laughter coming from people who were listening to my interview YouTube inserted the word “laughter” – which should give you an idea how fun an interview it was.)
As Rabbi Leibl explained to me, “I’ll tell you a serious story. When I was training – and I trained with Rabbi Annabal Mass… our teacher, Rabbi Steven Glade, encouraged everyone to consider a blessing of the animals ceremony because he said it’s a monster event. Just look around. It brought out so many people. It’s one of those events you can tie in loosely to a Jewish event – which it is. I mean we did it on Rosh Chodesh Elul- the new year of the animals and this whole idea it’s very similar to Tu B’Shvat- reimagining something old from Mishna to do it like this – but look at the attendance. I mean everyone wants to bring their dog and at a personal care home they say that music, babies, and dogs are the three biggest things that get through to everyone.”
I had to ask about kashrut, however (as I’ve been told repeatedly that kashrut is an essential element of the Simkin Centre – no matter how few residents may care about kashrut. Look – if I’m sent to cover something as frivolous as a “Bark Mitzvah” you can hardly expect me to refrain from going after my pet bugaboo at the Simkin Centre – and how ridiculous it is to require that the centre remain kosher when most of the residents could care less about kashrut), so I said to Rabbi Leibl: “No milk bones here, I hope. I expect that this is a strictly kosher event.”
His response: “I’m not sure. I wasn’t put in charge of that, so I can’t say. But no one’s going to be serving them any of the food that we eat. I can tell [laughter] you that.”
I said: “I’m not sure how to read that. [laughter].”
I asked whether there were Jewish dogs mixed in with non-Jewish dogs? (Dog assimilation is a serious issue.)
Rabbi Leibl replied: It’s inter denominational. [laughter] . I guess I don’t think we check to see if the dogs were uh circumcised. “
I asked: “Are we… [laughter] Are we mixing Jewish and non-Jewish dogs?”
Rabbi Leibl: “I don’t know that dogs have a faith. I’m not sure. I think they do. I think they’re of all faiths. ”
I asked: “Okay. And you know where bark mitzvahs originated?”
Rabbi Leibl: I’m sure it’s probably something silly.
Me: “It was gay guys in New York.”
Rabbi Leibl: ” Really?”
Me: ” Yes. Because they didn’t have kids. They started having bark mitzvahs.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That was probably more of an individual dog thing. This is a communal thing. It’s just a catchy title for publicity, Bernie. It’s the blessing of the animals. That’s the real thing.”
Me: “I was told that some of these dogs are on medication – as are many of the residents.”
Rabbi Leibl: “That’s low hanging fruit, Bellan. Low hanging fruit.”
Here’s the complete video of my interview:
