Features
Jewish nonprofits are struggling. How should donors try to rescue them?
By BEN SALES NEW YORK (JTA) — In the weeks after it became clear that the coronavirus pandemic would spark a lasting economic crisis, the Jewish world’s leading funder group put together a memo with some back-of-the-envelope projections for how much Jewish nonprofits stood to lose.
The tally: at least $650 million, according to the internal document from the Jewish Federations of North America, which was based on estimates from several American Jewish umbrella organizations, such as the Foundation for Jewish Camp and the JCC Association of North America. The document was produced in March and obtained by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The document says Jewish camps, schools, community centers and other groups like college Hillels will need that much or more to make it through the pandemic, which has already caused widespread layoffs and furloughs at Jewish community centers across the United States.
On Monday, a coalition of large Jewish philanthropic foundations pledged $80 million to shore up struggling Jewish organizations. But now, with it becoming increasingly clear that the world will not snap back to its former shape anytime soon, that number appears to be a fraction of what will be needed. Doron Krakow, CEO of the JCC Association of North America, told JTA earlier this month that the need would exceed $800 million if camps have to close for the summer and a recession drags into a second year.
The sudden financial blow is reanimating a longstanding debate about the best way to support America’s robust infrastructure of Jewish nonprofits. Should collective, communal fundraising bodies like Jewish federations have responsibility for disbursing philanthropy across the Jewish world? Or should the wide array of private Jewish family foundations each give separately to their causes?
Proponents of the network of Jewish federations, which act as collective funding bodies for local Jewish communities across the country, have suggested a single massive pool of coronavirus philanthropic assistance, to be managed centrally. No overarching plan has been put forward yet, but the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has learned that several leading funders are working to form a fund that would provide loans to Jewish organizations on the brink of going broke.
Among them is Krakow, who has called for private Jewish foundations and Jewish federations, which act as collective charities for Jewish communities across the country, to create a loan fund of $1 billion.
“There’s a need to know with confidence that we can keep one eye on the horizon and know that there’s a day after,” he said.
But some in the world of Jewish philanthropy are already raising questions about whether a centrally administered megafund is the best strategy to shepherd geographically and programmatically diverse organizations through the crisis.
“A ‘Billion Dollar Fund,’ a ‘Jewish New Deal’ [or] a ‘COVID czar’ are fine and well-intentioned ideas that look good on paper and seem simple and straightforward, but they are anything but,” Andres Spokoiny, CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, which convenes Jewish donors and foundations, wrote in a recent essay in the publication eJewish Philanthropy.
“As leaders it’s our responsibility to accept reality and focus on practical, smaller-scale, sector-specific solutions that can work,” Spokoiny wrote. “The aggregate of all those will be surely larger than any central fund and will produce a richer and more vibrant result.”
The $80 million fund, announced Monday, appears to attempt a third way. It’s a coalition between the Jewish Federations of North America and eight large Jewish philanthropic foundations. Called the Jewish Community Response and Impact Fund, it will prioritize organizations that focus on education, leadership and engagement, though a press release did not provide further detail on those fields.
The fund will provide short-term loans to organizations to meet payroll and maintain operations in the next three to six months, and will also award grants that do not have to be repaid. Participating foundations include the Jim Joseph Foundation, Maimonides Fund, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation and others.
“We have also seen firsthand the acute challenges Jewish organizations across the country are facing,” read a statement from the funders. “While this fund alone cannot address all of those challenges, we believe that investing together in these vital pillars of Jewish life will help ensure a stronger future for American Jewry in the months and years to come,”
Beyond that fund, experts in American Jewish philanthropy say that large individual donors and family foundations are likely to eschew putting their money in a giant pool. While federations used to dominate the Jewish giving scene, they and their ethos of collective giving have ceded more ground to private foundations, as large donors have become more involved in the causes they fund and more particular about how their money is spent.
“If we’ve seen any trend in philanthropy over the course of the last number of decades, it’s to targeted giving,” said Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary. “Donors are leery of giving large amounts of their philanthropy to a pot that will be divided up, not according to their own wishes but according to the directives of some body that would make the decision. Federations obviously have suffered from this.”
But there’s still interplay between large donors and federations, said Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim, a visiting scholar at Brandeis University who focuses on American Jewish philanthropy. Many Jewish family foundations give to their local Jewish federations and, in turn, sit on their boards or have influence over where the federation money goes.
“The golden rule of, the size of your donation impacts the size of your involvement, is very relevant to the world of Jewish federations,” said Bar Nissim, who is also deputy director of the Ruderman Family Foundation. “The more you give, the more you can have a say and become involved.”
No matter how the debate is settled — or whether it is at all — it’s clear that funders must move quickly if they are to blunt the effects of the pandemic, which has rendered at least 20 million Americans jobless in just four weeks.
Other Jewish philanthropies have also started doling out funds. New York’s UJA-Federation has announced $43 million in grants to social service organizations, JCCs and individuals in need.
And the Harold Grinspoon Foundation, which usually gives approximately $3 million annually to Jewish camps, has announced an additional $10 million in matching grants to help camps survive whatever financial damage this coming summer may bring.
The foundation’s leadership understands that $10 million is not nearly enough to fill camps’ anticipated needs — that would take about $150 million, the foundation estimates. Still, Sarah Eisinger, who heads the foundation’s camp initiative, said she hoped the $10 million dollars would set an example and give the camps a measure of hope.
“It’s only one intervention,” she said. “It’s only one slice of a much larger pie. But the early impact of that money and the psychological lift of a shot in the arm will fuel a sense of optimism and a possibility to raise resources.”
The foundation moved quickly in part because its president, Winnie Grinspoon, realized that hewing to longstanding giving practices, or waiting for them to be renegotiated, would deepen the financial devastation that is already unfolding.
“This is an unprecedented situation, as we all know, and the rules and restrictions we might operate under at a normal time go out the window,” Grinspoon said.
She added, “This is the moment to give boldly, to go beyond our normal giving structure and limitations for those who are able to reach deep into their pockets, so we don’t look back with regret.”
Features
New book highlights relationship between Kabbalah and science
By MYRON LOVE In his new book, “The Relativity of Death: Part One: Basic Principles of Kabbalah of Information. Complete Theory of Information Space, Miracles and Maxwell’s Demon,” Dr. Eduard Shyfrin demonstrates the complementary relationship between Kabbalah – the ancient practice of Jewish mysticism – and science.
“The Relativity of Death” is a follow up to “From Infinity to Man: the Fundamental Ideas of Kabbalah Within the Framework of Information Theory and Quantum Physics,” Shyfrin’s previous work on the subject, which he published in 2018.
In his introduction to “The Relativity of Death”, the author, himself a scientist by training – observes that while “science is absolutely necessary for humankind, it nevertheless does not constitute the whole truth. Science is morally neutral,” he continues. “Two plus two equals four is neither good nor bad. Science doesn’t provide an answer to the basic questions about our existence: Why are we here? What is our mission? How should we live? Do we have a freedom of choice? Why are we destined to die? And finally, the famous question posted by Gottfried Leibniz as to why is there something rather than nothing?
“I believe that it is impossible and wrong to try to describe Creation while at the same time excluding the Creator.
“When I started reading the works of kabbalists,” he notes, ‘I realised that Kabbalah is deeply ‘scientific,’ that it is a theory of Creation of which our Universe is just a part. Kabbalah is not a textbook – it doesn’t provide equations and laws. Instead, it’s a live body comprised of the teachings and opinions of kabbalists, which often diverged.
“The main notions of Kabbalah,” he writes, “for example the notion of light, are not well defined. As the great kabbalist Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto explained in his book, “Philosopher and Kabbalist,” the notion of ‘Light has no definition and is used as some sort of synonym for G-dliness.
“The original works of kabbalists,” he points out, “are very difficult to read and comprehend, since the main ideas are usually expressed through allegories, parables and hints. This makes them largely inaccessible to contemporary readers. With this in mind, I attempted to create the Theory of Kabbalah of Information based on traditional Kabbalah, Theory of Information and the body of scientific knowledge accumulated by humankind, written in simple language accessible to the reader.”
Eduard Shyfrin is a remarkable individual – a man of many parts. In addition to his roles as scientist and author – he has also published a children’s book – the Ukrainian-born Shyfrin is a musician who writes his own words and music, a billionaire, and an important community leader who generously supports his fellow Ukrainian Jews and our Israeli homeland.
Growing up during the last years of the Soviet Union though, it comes as no surprise that he knew nothing about Judaism except that he was Jewish. In the Soviet Union, being Jewish was simply a label that kept you from being accepted into top universities and leadership roles.
“We tried to hide out Jewishness,” he recalls. “I wanted to be a physicist but wasn’t accepted into university.”
Instead, he followed in his father’s footsteps and became a metallurgist. In 1983, he started work at a Ukrainian steel plant. Over the next few years, he was promoted from assistant foreman to manager to head of marketing.
He was able to earn a PhD in physical chemistry in 1993.
In 1993, he changed jobs – becoming a representative in Ukraine of a Hong Kong-based company called Linkfull. He was responsible for buying steel for export. In 1994, he joined forces with Alex Schnaider and co-founded a company called the Midland Group, with partner Alexander Shnaider. The company deals in steel, shipping, real estate, agriculture and sport ventures.
Shyfrin’s interest in Judaism was sparked by the arrival of Chabad rabbis in the lands of the former Soviet Union in the mid 1990s and, in particular, Rabbi David Bleich, the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine. Shyfrin recalls that Rabbi Bleich got him involved in Jewish charities. He helped rebuild the oldest synagogue in Kiev, provided funds for the Jewish schools in the city, and and financed the construction of the Jewish Education Centre in Kiev, which was dedicated to his late father.
Still, Shyfrin remained largely secular.
It was in 2002, he recalls, that he experienced a midlife crisis when he began questioning the meaning of life – and death.
“My rabbi,” he says, “encouraged me to commit to a more Jewish lifestyle. I began keeping kosher, putting on tefillin and studying Torah. I found in my Torah study that there were a lot of contradictions and inconsistencies in what I was reading in the Torah and what I had learned as a scientist.”
Shyfrin began to find his answers in Kabbalah, which he approached through a scientific perspective. As a result , he came to understand kabbalah and reality as “fundamentally information based and that physics and Torah describe different layers of the same structure”.
That epiphany led to his first book, which has sold around 8,000 copies. He followed up the book’s success by writing numerous articles for the Jerusalem Post. Shyfrin also gives a yearly lecture in London, where he now makes his home.
He is also the founder of the Shyfrin Alliance, an initiative dedicated to advancing understanding of Jewish mysticism and spiritual thought.
Alongside his delving into Jewish mysticism, Shyfrin remains very much involved in the real world and the crises affecting Israel, the Jewish people, and his Ukrainian homeland. He currently serves as Vice President of the World Jewish Congress, representing Ukraine. He continues to fund Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres across Ukraine and Russia.
Since the invasion of Ukraine, Shyfrin has helped finance evacuations of Jewish elderly people and children to Hungary and Israel and continues to support communities on a monthly basis.
“For me, a Jew is a Jew,” he has been quoted as saying. “It does not matter where he lives. We are one family.”
As for the rising antisemitism in Europe, he points out that – unlike the 1930s – today, we have Israel.
“Israel is our country and we must be strong enough to protect it,” he is quoted as saying..
“The Relativity of Death” was released in February, and, Shyfrin reports, has already sold over 5,000 copies. The book is available on Amazon and Kindle.
Features
Manitoba Has No iGaming Framework. So Where Are Winnipeg Players Actually Gambling Online?
Ontario’s regulated iGaming market hit a 91.1% channelization rate in May 2026, according to an AGCO/Ipsos study. Meaning nine out of ten Ontario players who gamble online are doing so through a licensed, registered operator. That’s a real number, and it took years of regulatory architecture to get there. Manitoba has none of that architecture. Zero. There’s no provincial iGaming framework, no registered operator list, and no equivalent to the iGaming Ontario regime that launched in April 2022. So when Winnipeg players open a browser and look for somewhere to play, they’re not choosing between regulated sites. They’re choosing between offshore ones.
For players trying to make sense of that offshore market, the most practical move is to compare no verification casinos side by side. Withdrawal speeds, licensing jurisdiction, and bonus terms vary far more than most review sites admit. A Curaçao-licensed site and a Malta Gaming Authority-licensed site can look identical on the homepage and behave completely differently when you try to withdraw CAD on a Sunday night.
Why Manitoba Is Still Waiting
The short answer: political will and provincial lottery revenue protection. Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries (MBLL) runs PlayNow.com, which is the province’s only officially sanctioned online gambling platform. It’s a Crown corporation product. Expanding regulation to private operators means cannibalizing that revenue stream, and no provincial government has been willing to absorb that trade-off yet.
Alberta moved first, announcing in 2024 that it would follow Ontario’s open-market model. The Jewish Post covered the Alberta question in its opinion piece on provincial iGaming regulation. Saskatchewan and British Columbia have their own Crown-run online products. Manitoba? MBLL runs PlayNow, and that’s where the conversation stops.
The practical consequence is straightforward. PlayNow offers a limited game library, deposit methods that exclude several major e-wallets, and. Critically. A full KYC process that requires government-issued ID before a player can withdraw. For anyone who has spent time on offshore platforms, PlayNow’s withdrawal processing feels closer to a 2009 bank wire than a modern iGaming product.
What ‘No Verification’ Actually Means
The term gets used loosely, so let’s be precise. No-verification casinos. Sometimes called no-KYC casinos. Don’t require you to upload a passport or utility bill to open an account and withdraw. Most operate on a tiered model: you can deposit and withdraw up to a threshold (often around C$2,000 to C$5,000 cumulative) without identity documents. Go above that, and they’ll ask for verification at that point.
That’s meaningfully different from a blanket “no ID ever” claim, which doesn’t really exist at licensed operators. Any site claiming zero KYC under all circumstances is either very small, unlicensed, or not being straight with you about their AML obligations.
The ones worth looking at are licensed under jurisdictions that actually enforce standards. Curaçao eGaming being the most common for Canadian-facing sites, Malta Gaming Authority and Isle of Man for the better-resourced operators. Licensing matters because it determines what happens when a dispute arises. A Curaçao license at least gives you a complaints pathway. No license gives you nothing.
The Real Variables Winnipeg Players Should Check
Withdrawal speed is where most offshore sites either earn or lose the trust. I’ve tested CAD withdrawals via Interac e-Transfer on three different offshore platforms in the last six months. Two cleared within 90 minutes on a weekday. The third flagged my withdrawal for a manual review that took four business days and required a second round of document uploads. Same deposit method, very different outcomes.
Bonus terms are the other landmine. A 100% match up to C$500 sounds good until you read the wagering requirement. Anything above 35x on slots. And some no-verification sites are running 45x or 50x. Makes the bonus money functionally worthless unless you’re grinding low-volatility games for hours. The max bet cap during bonus play is equally critical. C$5 per spin on a C$500 bonus means you need 100 spins minimum just to cycle through once, and the dead spins add up fast.
Payment method availability for Canadian players specifically is worth a dedicated check. Not every offshore site offers Interac. Some push crypto as the primary withdrawal rail, which works fine if you’re comfortable converting CAD to USDT and back. But adds friction and exchange rate risk most players don’t account for. A few have added MuchBetter and eZeeWallet as alternatives, which process faster than bank transfers and don’t trigger the same scrutiny from Canadian banks that some gambling-coded transactions do.
The Legal Position for Manitoba Players
This comes up constantly, and the honest answer is that Canadian gambling law places regulatory authority under provincial jurisdiction, meaning the federal Criminal Code doesn’t prohibit individuals from playing at offshore sites. It prohibits operating an unlicensed gambling business in Canada. Players are not operators. No Canadian has been prosecuted for accessing an offshore gambling site.
That said, “not illegal” and “fully protected” are different things. If an offshore operator disappears with your funds, you have limited recourse. If a withdrawal is declined and the operator ghosts your support ticket, no provincial regulator is going to intervene on your behalf the way the AGCO can intervene for an Ontario player. You’re relying on the operator’s licensing body, which may or may not respond in a useful timeframe.
Gowling WLG’s 2025 analysis of Manitoba’s enforcement posture notes that the province has moved against offshore operators directly. Including action against Bodog. But has taken no steps toward building a regulatory framework that would bring players back onto licensed domestic ground. The enforcement is pointed at operators, not players, and it hasn’t changed what’s available to Winnipeg residents looking for alternatives to PlayNow.
Where This Lands
Manitoba’s regulatory gap isn’t closing soon. Alberta’s framework is still being built. The realistic picture for Winnipeg players in 2026 is that offshore, no-verification operators remain the de facto alternative to PlayNow. And the quality gap between a well-run licensed offshore site and a badly run one is significant enough that doing due diligence before depositing is not optional.
Check the license, read the withdrawal terms before the bonus terms, and know your method’s processing time. The market isn’t going away; it’s just not regulated to protect you yet.
Gambling involves risk. Please play responsibly and only wager what you can afford to lose. If you feel gambling is becoming a problem, visit BeGambleAware.org or call 1-800-GAMBLER.
—
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal for Manitoba players to gamble on offshore casino sites? Canadian federal law targets operators running unlicensed gambling businesses, not individual players. Manitoba residents accessing offshore sites are not violating federal law. However, there’s no provincial regulatory protection if a dispute arises. You’re relying on the operator’s licensing body, which may be slow or unresponsive.
What is the difference between PlayNow and offshore no-verification casinos? PlayNow is Manitoba’s Crown-run online gambling platform, requiring full KYC and offering a limited game library. Offshore no-verification casinos skip the document upload process up to a withdrawal threshold, typically run larger game libraries, and often process CAD withdrawals faster. But without provincial regulatory protection backing you up.
Are no-verification casinos licensed? The reputable ones are. Curaçao eGaming and the Malta Gaming Authority are the most common licensing jurisdictions for Canadian-facing no-KYC operators. Unlicensed sites exist and should be avoided entirely. No license means no complaints pathway and no enforceable player protection if a dispute arises.
Why doesn’t Manitoba have a regulated iGaming market like Ontario? Political and financial reasons. Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries earns revenue from PlayNow, its Crown-run platform. Bringing private operators into a licensed open market would cannibalize that revenue stream. No provincial government has been willing to accept that trade-off, though pressure from Alberta’s move toward an Ontario-style framework may eventually shift the calculus.
What should I check before depositing at a no-verification casino as a Canadian player? Four things: licensing jurisdiction, withdrawal speed for CAD specifically, wagering requirements on any bonus (anything above 35x is a red flag), and whether Interac e-Transfer is available as a withdrawal method. Crypto rails are faster but add exchange rate risk most players underestimate.
Features
A Left-wing Yiddishist in Western Canada
By HENRY SREBRNIK I recently presented a paper on Khaim Zhitlovsky, a major proponent of secular Jewish diaspora nationalism and Jewish nationhood, at the Association for Canadian Jewish Studies annual conference at York University in Toronto.
Zhitlovsky was born in Ushachi near Vitebsk in what is now Belarus in 1865. A leading architect of secular Jewish culture and thought, he was a central figure in the progressive Jewish intelligentsia of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in Canada and the United States.
At a Jewish International Cultural Conference organized in Paris in September 1937, the Alveltlekher Yiddisher Kultur Farband (YKUF) was founded, and he was one of the supporters. As the honorary president of the YKUF in the United States, Zhitlovsky became an icon of the Yiddishist Communist movement, particularly in western Canada, where he had inspired the founding of a strong secular Yiddish school system. At the fifth Canadian Labour Zionist conference, held in Montreal in 1910, Zhitlovsky had made a plea for Yiddish schools, saying, “If you reject Yiddish, the Jewish proletariat will reject you.”
During the Second World War, the Communist-dominated YKUF became the most important ideological vehicle for the pro-Soviet Jewish movement in Canada. It included Winnipeg activists such as Dr. Benjamin A. Victor, who had come to Canada in 1912 as a child, from the small town of Zhlobin in Belarus, and grew up in Winnipeg’s North End. He and others devoted their political energies to YKUF work and by early 1941 there were three YKUF reading circles in Winnipeg.
Much of this activity was also due to the arrival in Winnipeg of the new principal of the Communist-organized Sholem Aleichem School (formerly the Liberty Temple School), Labl Basman. Victor addressed meetings, speaking about the works of Zhitlovsky and Zishe Weinper, both prominent New York-based Yiddishists and YKUF leaders.
“Dr. B.A.Victor must be counted as being one of the most important workers in the progressive Jewish cultural movement in Winnipeg, and in particular the YKUF,” wrote Basman in the Kanader Yidishe Vochenblat, the weekly newspaper of the Canadian Jewish Communists, in the spring of 1942. “Dr. Victor has always stood in the forefront of every cultural-social movement that has been progressive and in the interests of the masses.”
Winnipeg, which Zhitlovsky visited frequently over the years, was, in the words of Jack Switzer, “a Zhitlovsky fortress.” Zhitlovsky’s 75th birthday in the autumn of 1941 had been celebrated by the organization in all of its branches across the country. When he again visited Canada in April 1942, a new YKUF men’s club was named in his honour in Winnipeg. Montreal poet Sholem Shtern, in one laudatory profile, depicted Zhitlovsky’s struggle on behalf of Yiddish language and culture, against assimilationists on both left and right, and against Zionist Hebraists. “In Yiddish Zhitlovsky sees that great progressive strength which will enable it to bring into being a new era in Jewish life.”
So Zhitlovsky’s sudden death on May 6, 1943, in Calgary, while he was on a cross-Canada lecture tour, “hit us like a thunderbolt” and “brought about sadness throughout the country,” declared the Vochenblat.
Labl Basman reported on Zhitlovsky’s last trip to Winnipeg. His two lectures had been attended by some 1,300 people, and, Basman observed, “provided the progressive Jewish community with a clear and outstanding analysis of these catastrophic times.” Zhitlovsky had stressed that support for the Soviet Union was imperative; the USSR needed to emerge from the war strengthened and with a prominent role in any post-war settlement. The Soviet Union was the centre of world progress and Jews would benefit greatly from a strong USSR, since this would mean the end of anti-Semitism and the solution of the Jewish question.
Louis Pearlman of Calgary, who was cultural chair of that city’s Peretz Shule, described Zhitlovsky’s visit to the city where he would pass away, in the Vochenblat. Zhitlovsky arrived in Calgary from Winnipeg on April 28, in good spirits, and was scheduled to give six lectures over a two-week period. About 100 people turned out for his first lecture on April 30, in the Peretz Shule, on “Socialism and Religion.”
He spoke again May 2, to 150 people, on “The Spiritual Battle of the Jewish People for its Survival.” His third lecture, on May 4, dealt with Judaism and Christianity and was also well received. But a day later he had a heart attack and was taken to a hospital; he died on May 6. Pearlman accompanied Zhitlovsky’s body back to New York and attended his funeral there.
The Vochenblat reprinted Zhitlovsky’s greetings to Birobidzhan, the Jewish Autonomous Region in the Soviet far east, on its 15th anniversary, which he had released on April 25. “Our Jewish people now has two countries in which a new Jewish life is being built, a normal life” one where Jews will live in Jewish towns and Jewish cities, “just like all the other peoples on earth,” he wrote. “The two countries are Birobidzhan and Erets Yisroel.” They ought not to be seen as antagonistic alternatives, he declared. In both, Jewish life would become “normalized” and Jews would flourish.
“Every Jewish accomplishment in both countries gives us courage in the struggle for our survival, elevates the prestige of our people in the eyes of the non-Jewish world, and strengthens our desire for the complete national liberation of our people, with the complete rights and strengths of membership in the fraternal family of nations. May the Jewish nation of Birobidzhan have long life and mature in freedom!”
Of course we now know the Birobidzhan project was a dismal failure, nor was the Soviet Union the “promised land” dreamt of by the Jewish left. Perhaps an entry in the third volume of the Leksikon Fun Der Nayer Yidisher Literatur, published in 1960 by the Congress of Jewish Culture, sums Zhitlovsky up best:
“A man who adopted, abandoned, or lost interest in so many different political programs and causes; who joined, left, or drifted away from so many parties was probably destined, at least in the short run, to oblivion. At varying times, he was a sharp opponent of Zionism and a Zionist, an anti-territorialist and a territorialist, a supporter of the Jewish Labour Bund and one of its harshest critics, a Socialist Revolutionary and an apologist for Bolshevism. He was a kind of ideological nomad, forever on the move” — and so now virtually forgotten.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
