Local News
A taste of Limmud 2020
By MYRON LOVE
Limmud Winnipeg celebrated its tenth anniversary on the weekend of February 29/March 1 with quite possibly its best attendance to date. Close to 400 members of our community had more than three dozen sessions to choose from, with presenters from across Canada, New York and Israel joining local speakers and facilitators in providing a smorgasbord of topics both secular and religious, cultural and culinary.
As usual, this writer indulged in a representative sampling of what was on the menu, balancing local and Israeli issues with some religious study as well as delving into Jewish history. And, while each session could make for an entire feature on its own, space considerations leave me to focus on the highlights.
So let us begin the journey.
The first session that I attended was a presentation by former Winnipegger Jack Frohlich, who made a aliyah in 1989 and who, for the past 18 years, has been teaching conversion classes under the auspices of the National Centre for Conversion. He also works closely with the Beta Israel (Ethiopian) community.
Frohlich delivered two presentations – the first discussing the challenges facing Ethiopian Israelis and the second talking about the controversial issue of conversion in Israel. There is much misinformation concerning conversion in Israel, Frohlich pointed out.
My own understanding was that Reform and Conservative conversions are not recognized in Israel and – much to my surprise, there have been Orthodox conversions in North America that also aren’t recognized in Israel. The reality is that the only conversions officially recognized in Israel are those which are approved by the Dayanim (rabbi/judges) associated with the National Centre for Conversion.
As Frohlich noted, even a conversion by a rabbi in solidly Haredi Bnai Brak would not be recognized.
He pointed out that while Reform and Conservative conversions may not be recognized or the converts considered Jewish, they are still welcomed under the Law of Return with all the benefits that come with it.
Then there is the occasional report that converts have to vow to observe all the Mitzvot both during the conversion process and forever after on pain of having the conversion rescinded. Not true, Frohlich said. Once one is accepted into the Jewish community, the individual can life his or her life the same way those who are born Jewish do.
“Becoming a Jew is a two-sided coin,” he said. “It is a two-for-one deal. You are adopting a new religion and you become part of the Jewish People.”
While the original Law of Return applied only to Halachic Jews born of a Jewish mother, he noted, in 1970, the government expanded the Law of Return to include anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent – even though the individual would not be considered Jewish per se.
Of the Russian immigrants who came to Israel in the 1990s, Frohlich pointed out, about 50% were not halachically Jewish.
He reported that Israel registers about 2,500 conversions a year with most of the converts being women. “Weddings often follow,” he said.
Quite a number of Filipinos (Filipinas?) and Arab Moslems are among the converts, he noted.
And the government and the rabbinate continue to make the conversion process easier, he added. In recent years, all fees have been removed and a more flexible approach has been adopted for the learning process.
“Most students are pleasantly surprised by their ulpan/educational experiences,” Frohlich said.
He reported that about 80% of conversion applicants are approved the first time they appear before the Bet Din with the remainder often approved following a few more months of studying.
From Israel, we travel back to Winnipeg to hear the story of Shimon Segal. The 33-year-old criminal lawyer began life with the deck stacked against him. He has succeeded in life through his own inner strength and the love and support of David and Glenda Segal and their sons, Devin and Ryan.
Segal was born into a strictly Orthodox – but dysfunctional family. Over his first few years, he was imbued with Orthodox practice and tradition and a strong Jewish identity. The middle of three children, he recalls a lot of arguing in the home.
He began his schooling in the Hebrew Bilingual program at Centennial School in the North End. After Grade 2, he recalled, the family moved south, where his parents became less and less observant and opened a grow-op in their home. “The house was always moldy and dirty,” he remembered.
While attending Brock Corydon’s Hebrew Bilingual program, he made some friends among his classmates -, in particular, Devin Segal.
The Jewish Child and Family Service first stepped into the family situation when he was seven. He noted that his mother was abusive and his father disinterested.
When he was ten, his parents split and he found himself back in the North End in a group home where he was the only Jewish kid. “I was living a double life,” he recalled. “I was taking the bus to Brock Corydon every day. At the group home, I started smoking cigarettes and marijuana and wearing gang clothes to try to fit in. I would show up at school smelling of cigarettes. I didn’t fit in anywhere. While I remained close to my friends at Brock Corydon, most of their parents didn’t approve of their sons hanging out with me.”
The exception was David Segal. “My dad (David Segal) began to be involved in my life when I was ten,” Shimon said. “He took an interest in me. He would take me fishing sometimes. There was no sense of judgment. I relaxed when I was with him.”
For a short time, Segal was housed with foster parents Barry and the late Marsha Weber, to whom he is also grateful. The Webers took in foster children for short periods of time.)
At the age of 12, he was returned to his birth mother for a time. That didn’t work out. He spent some time in the Manitoba Youth Centre and with a Christian foster family who sent him to a bible camp. “They were only in it for the money,” he said of those foster parents.
“I began spending more and more time with the Segals,” Shimon said.
After several excruciating weeks with the Christian family, he was returned to his birth father who, after a short time, locked him out of the house.
That was when his life really took a turn for the worse. He ended up living on the street in Tuxedo. “I tried Osborne Village, but it felt too dangerous,” he recalled. “In Tuxedo, I felt safer. I slept wherever I could – partially-built buildings, a friend’s mother’s station wagon, even in the Assiniboine Forest for a time.”
It wasn’t long after that David and Glenda Segal invited him to move in with them permanently and become a member of the family. “David and Glenda became my dad and mom and Devin and Ryan my new brothers.”
He added that he has kept in touch with his own birth siblings – a brother and sister- and that the Segal family has included them in family gatherings.
The love and support from his new family, Shimon said, enabled him to rekindle his inner Jewishness and feel part of the Jewish community again.
Over the last ten years, Segal has been able to earn a law degree. He has married and become a father. And he has given back to the community and, through his legal work, other vulnerable people.
“Thanks to the Segal Family, I have been able to live a normal life,” he said.
“What the Segal Family did for Shimon was amazing,” said Randee Pollock, the Jewish Child and Family Service’s Adoption, Fostercare and Rescue Co-ordinator. “Our goal is to keep families together – but that is not always possible where there are mental health or addiction issues or perhaps there has been a death in the family.”
She reports that the JCFS currently has 15 Jewish children in care with nine foster homes and three places of safety available to house them. “We are always in need of more Jewish families who are willing to open their homes to children in our community who are in need of shelter,” she noted.
From Winnipeg, we again pack our bags for our third port of call as we follow Rabbi Mark Glickman, the spiritual leader of Reform Congregation Temple B’nai Tikvah in Calgary, as he travels the world in search of the lost story of the Cairo Genizah.
Glickman is the author of “Sacred Treasure – the Cairo Genizah: The Amazing Discoveries of Forgotten History in an Egyptian Synagogue Attic”. (He also delivered a talk at Limmud in 2016 about his follow-up book, “Stolen Words: The Nazi Plunder of Jewish books”.)
Glickman’s research took him to archives at Cambridge University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York – the world’s two largest repositories of Genizah documents – and, accompanied by his son, Jacob, to the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo, which was the original repository of the Genizah.
So, you might be wondering what a “genizah” is? As Glickman pointed out, we are a People of the Book. Under Jewish Law, it is not allowed to throw out sacred books. The proper way to dispose of them is burial in a Jewish cemetery. But they have to be stored somewhere until they can be buried. In my own synagogue, the genizah – or storage space – is a cupboard downstairs. For many centuries in the old Ben Ezra Synagogue in Cairo, it was a space – a hole in the wall in the women’s section upstairs.
The current Ben Ezra Synagogue, Glickman reported, was built in the 11th century on the banks of the Nile, replacing an earlier shul which was destroyed by flooding. In the Middle Ages, he noted, Egypt was home to a large and influential Jewish community one of whose most prominent members was the great Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (aka Maimonidies aka the Rambam).
There are a number of Western characters associated with the discovery of the treasure trove of documents that were stored in the Ben Ezra genizah. The first outsider to appear on the scene was one Simon Von Geldern, a German Jewish adventurer and Orientalist who moved in Bedouin circles. He visited the Genizah, but took nothing from it.
Then there came a Rabbi Jacob Saphir, a dealer in Jewish documents in Jerusalem, who heard about the Genizah from Van Geldern, dropped in, and brought back about 1,000 documents for sale. Next was Abraham Firkovitch, a member of the breakaway Karaite sect – who came in search of documents of historical interest to the Karaite community.
In the 1880s, Elkan Nathan Adler, a prominent member of England’s Jewish community – and son and brother of Chief Rabbis of England, visited and left with more than 6,000 documents (as possibly a Torah cover).
The scholarly interest in the Genizah, Glickman noted, began in 1996 when Rabbi Solomon Schechter – then teaching at Cambridge University, had an encounter with an unusual colleague. Twin sisters Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson were Semitic scholars and travellers who had recently returned from an expedition to St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. Among the documents they brought back was one in a language that the two multi linguists didn’t recognize. They asked Schechter if he could help. He recognized it as a tractate for the book Ben Sira, a book of wisdom that had not been included in the Talmudic canon. The book at that time was only known from a Greek translation.
“The last person to have seen that book in the original Hebrew was Saadia Gaon over 1000 years before,” Glickman noted. “The document was from the Ben Ezra Genizah. Schechter – very excited by this find – quickly arranged to visit the genizah and subsequently transferred close to 200,000 documents to Cambridge for translation and study.”
The documents – 300,000 in total – consisted not only of religious material but also letters, business records, medical prescriptions and the other detritus of every day life. Among the documents that Glickman highlighted was the oldest piece of Jewish sheet music (composed by an Italian Catholic priest who had converted to Judaism), an early Hebrew reading primer and the last letter that Maimonides received from his beloved younger brother, David, before the businessman was lost at sea en route to India.
Over the past 20 years, Glickman reported that advances in computer technology have made translating the documents and connected fragments much easier. He noted that the Freidberg Genizah Project was established in 1999 as a non-profit international humanities venture established by philanthropist Albert Friedberg of Toronto to promote and facilitate research of the material discovered in the Cairo Genizah. Under the aegis of the project, all of the genizah materials are in the process on being inventoried and put online.
Glickman completed his presentation with a video of himself peering into the now empty genizah.
And we conclude with a little Torah study led by Rabbi Yosef Benarroch, spiritual leader of the Adas Yeshurun Herzlia Congregation. His question: Does being religious make you a better person?
In contemplating the question, Rabbi Benarroch first turned to the story of creation, noting that while the Lord commented after each of the first five days of creation that work was “good”, He does not say the same about His creation of mankind. Rather, the Torah says that the Lord “created Man in his image”.
So what does that mean? Benarroch quoted Torah and referred to several rabbanim – including Rabbi Akiva, Rambam and the late modern sages, Rabbis Joseph Soloveitchik and Abraham Joshua Heschel – as well as talmudic commentaries and their interpretations. One suggestion that Benarroch made is that of all G-d’s creations, man is the only one that can also create.
And while G-d doesn’t have an “image” in the way that man does, He does have attributes that can well be emulated – being slow to anger and quick to forgive, compassionate, gracious and merciful – attributes that are part of a prayer shul goers sing on Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot before taking out the Torah and at Selichot in the days leading up to the High Holidays.
So, while engaging in regular religious practice itself doesn’t determine good or bad behavior, Rabbi Benarroch concluded, attempting to model your life after the qualities exhibited by the Lord – in His image – will, without a doubt make one a better person.
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:
