Local News
Lawyer Lawrence Pinsky has played a role in combating anti-Israel discrimination at U of M
By MYRON LOVE Lawrence Pinsky K.C. , the Progressive Conservative candidate in the recent Tuxedo by-election to fill the seat held by former Premier Heather Stefanson, says that when he was first approached to let his name stand, he initially demurred.
“I said that I would try to find someone else,” he says. “I approached five other potential candidates. All refused. Two cited concerns about anti-Semitism. So I said that I would run.”
But it is not only in politics that Pinsky has answered the call. In fact, the partner in the law firm, Taylor McCaffrey, has been answering the call to help students at the University of Manitoba who felt targeted for supporting Israel. For several months now Pinsky has been providing his legal services pro bono to Jewish students fighting discrimination at the University of Manitoba since shortly after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7.
The son of the late Harry and Dvora Pinsky grew up in West Kildonan. He earned his LLB at the University of Manitoba and was called to the Bar in 1993. He became a partner at Taylor McCaffrey in 1998.
Over the past 30 years Pinsky has built a solid career as a leader in the area of Family Law. Among the high points of his career have been his role as co-founder, director and president of FAMLI (the Family Arbitration and Mediation Legal Institute). He was also a co-founder and co-chair of the National Family Law Arbitration Program – and he served ten years as a member of the Manitoba Human Rights Commission adjudication panel.
As with almost everyone else in our Jewish community, Puisky was appalled by the horrors of the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on October 7. “My wife Jennifer and I attended the community-wide rally in support of Israel shortly after,” says Pinsky, whose father was a Holocaust survivor. “What was happening on the streets of our cities was scary. I felt that I had to act.”
His first action was to go to Israel in November with Jennifer – under the auspices of Sar-El – and volunteer at the Tel Hashomer army base in the Tel Aviv area.
Upon his return home, he began working with Jewish students facing both physical assaults and discrimination at the U. of M.
“Several students reached out to me,” he says. “My colleagues and I began working with B’nai Brith and Hillel to try to help the students. We met with several students and professors and others in the community.”
One fact he learned, he says, is that there are about 3,000 Israelis living in Winnipeg. (Consulting Editor Bernie Bellan comments: That assertion is simply not borne out by a reference to the results of the 2021 Census. According to the census, only 1350 individuals in Winnipeg gave “Israeli” as one of their ethnic origins in answer to the question: “What is your ethnic origin?” Furthermore, It was possible to give more than one answer to the question about ethnic origin on the census – and you were allowed to list up to six different ethnic origins, but if someone who had lived in Israel and was born in Russia or Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter didn’t give “Israeli” as one of their ethnic origins, the figure of 3,000 Israelis living in Winnipeg is simply not supported by any evidence.
The Jewish Federation of Winnipeg had long been embellishing the number of Jews living in Winnipeg – with spokespersons such as former Federation President Gustavo Zentner claiming a figures as high as 17,000 Jews in Winnipeg at times in the past. In fact, after a thorough analysis of the 2021 Census, I found that, at an absolute maximum, there were no more than 14,270 Jews living in Winnipeg in 2021. And, that figure took into account a combination of individuals who said they were “Jewish” – either by ethnic origin or by religion. For instance, of the 10,700 individuals who gave Jewish as one of their ethnic origins, a full 1,245 said they were “Christian” by religion.
One other fascinating finding from the 2021 census was that, of the 1350 individuals who gave “Israeli” as one of their ethnic origins, only 855 also said they were “Jewish” by religion! A full 385 of those individuals said they had no religion at all, while 105 said they were Christian by religion. Further, only 11,170 individuals in the census said they were “Jewish” by religion in Winnipeg. I’ve long argued that many people exaggerate the number of Jews, also the number of Israelis living in Winnipeg – without having any empirical evidence to support their claims. But, if it makes you feel better to say there are 17,000 Jews in Winnipeg and 3,000 Israelis, go ahead and trot out any figures you might like. Just don’t claim that those figure are supported by any evidence.)
Pinsky points out that discrimination against Zionist students and faculty by the University of Manitoba Student Union pre-dates October 7 by a number of years, but the situation has noticeably worsened over the past eight months. Among the incidents he cites have been anti-Semitic posters being put up at the Asper School of Business, a Jewish student being spat upon, sexually harassing insults being hurled at a Jewish female student, hostage posters being torn down, discriminatory differential standards at The Manitoban (the University of Manitoba Student Union newspaper) being applied against Jewish Zionist students, the refusal or failure of the editor of The Manitoban to publish articles supporting Israel despite being provided articles and requests to do so, and the suspension on February 28 by UMSU of Students Supporting Israel because of a comment made by Bassam Eid, a Palestinian Muslim human rights campaigner who spoke at the university under the auspices of SSI and others.
Eid’s “offensive” statement (according to one Muslim student who made the complaint that got SSI suspended) was in response to a question from the audience. Eid said that “the major problem here, I call it the ideology of the Muslims. When it comes to ideology the Muslims are blind”.
Notes Pinsky, who also helped SSI get reinstated (on March 27), the SSI should never have been held responsible for Eid’s comment. “The suspension was in violation of UMSU’s own guidelines,” he says. “In addition, Mr. Eid made the comment in response to a question. The SSI organizers had no possible way of knowing or foreseeing Eid’s answer.”
The most recent disturbing situation on campus was sparked by an emergency session of the UMSU board to consider a motion that would have approved a new definition of anti-Palestinian racism – as defined by the Canadian Arab Lawyers Association – which appears to contradict existing UMSU policy, and which would essentially ban any criticism or disagreement of the official Palestinian narrative. Pinsky alleges that the student union proceeded in a manner that is contrary to existing UMSU bylaws.
“This is utter nonsense,” he states. “It is an attempt to rewrite history and a violation of freedom of speech. This is obscene.”
On April 5, Pinsky and his colleagues filed on behalf of his clients – a group of Jewish students at the University of Manitoba – a complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission against the University of Manitoba Student Union (UMSU), the Manitoban, and other named individuals.
Whereas Jewish Zionist students and faculty at other universities in Canada and the United States beleaguered by systemic anti-Semitism have gone to court to seek redress, Pinsky explains that the University of Manitoba students sought intervention by the Manitoban Human Rights Commission instead because the MHRC writ is broader in this province.
“The recent actions of UMSU, The Manitoban and named respondents in regard to Jewish students and their supporters is unacceptable,” Pinsky states. “They are a violation of the Human Rights Code, according to the complaint that was initiated. UMSU, The Manitoban and the other named respondents would seem to have certain requirements that are applied only for Jewish Zionist students, restricting them in a way that would be unacceptable for any other groups . My clients are fighting to make sure that the UMSU, The Manitoban and the University generally becomes an environment where all students are treated equally and in a manner free of discrimination. Sadly, we have a long way to go.”
The vote on the UMSU motion was initially put off for two weeks to give both advocates and opponents more time to make their case and, shortly after the MHRC filing, was shelved indefinitely.
While he concedes that it could take several years before the MHRC puts out its report and recommendations on the matter, he is hopeful that he, his colleagues, and his clients will be able to work with UMSU, and the other respondents to find a positive way forward.
“I remain optimistic,” he says.
He adds that this case is important not only for the Zionist students on campus. In principle, any group could be similarly marginalized against,” he says. “I stand against all forms of discrimination.”
As to the situation at the many others campuses across Canada and the U.S. being consumed by anti-Israel hate and anti-Semitism, Pinsky comments that “The bottom line is that it is up to all universities administrations and student unions and all of their mechanisms and outlets to take the lead in acting strongly against hate before things escalate to the level that is roiling campuses such as Columbia, Harvard and McGill.
”To the extent that they fail to do so, governments should be enforcing or passing appropriate legislation to ensure a safe environment for all students without exception for hate targeted at Jewish students who happen to abide by the creed that the oldest still existent indigenous people of that land, have a right to the autonomy of a state there.”
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 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:
