17 minute read
PAGE Humans of Melbourne
the shiurim at night, and the special functions (“halachah research lectures”) which the Kollel would run in private homes throughout the year. This went on until 1997. For sixteen years I was zoiche to be in involved with the Kollel. There I was able to bring my Jewish learning up to a par with (l’havdil) my secular studies. All the work I have done till today rests on the foundational years spent there.
When did you receive your S’micha and become a certified Rabbi?
Advertisement
The suggestion was made to me early on by Reb Arel that I should study for s’micha in Kollel. But what clinched it was the suggestion to me in 1984 by Rabbi Chaim Gutnick that he would test me in s’micha and confer it. (Many years later I heard from Tzippy Oliver OAM, who heard from Reb Chaim, that this was at the Rebbe’s specific behest. I can only conjecture about the Rebbe’s intentions. Maybe one of them was that s’micha combined with my z’chus avos, would enhance my outreach capabilities. It
worked out, somewhat strangely for a Kollel yungeman, that in 1984, within a few months of each other, I was awarded both my PHD and my S’micha!
Rabbi Gutnick also suggested that I seek a further s’micha overseas in addition to his own. In 1985, on a visit to NY, I wrote to the Rebbe that I was looking to receive a second s’micha but that it was not clear that I would be able to do this in NY. I also wrote to him that someone had suggested that I might be interested in a Rabbincal position in New Zealand, though personally I felt a stronger leaning to being an academic. The Rebbe underlined the word “academic”, and he added the words, “be’im efshar” – “if it’s possible”. (That “if it’s possible” consoles me for the fact that I have not made a full-time career in academia: fulltime academia did not open for me, though I did some teaching at University and was an Honorary Associate of the University for many years. I trust the work I have done within my Institute is of an academic standard even though it is outside the University.) In regard to the question of where I would obtain the second s’micha, which did not seem likely to eventuate in NY, the Rebbe responded, “Oi bemokom achar” – “or [alternatively] in another place.”
In 1989 I travelled again to the Rebbe in the month of Elul. I bore in mind that a few years earlier the Rebbe had told me I can get my second s’micha in “another place”. As it happened I was going to be travelling from New York to spend a few days in Eretz Yisroel before returning home for Rosh Hashonah. Whilst I was lining up at 770, waiting for my turn to pass by the Rebbe for dollars, I had in mind that I needed to accomplish two important things in Eretz Yisroel: (1) the second s’micha and (2) to meet with the Chassidic artist Baruch Nachshon, who lived in Kiryat Arba. A few years earlier Rabbi Leibel Wolf had brought him, together with a lot of his artwork, to Melbourne. Seeing his art, opened my eyes and excited me immensely since I saw that you could have art of world-calibre, suffused with authentic Jewish content. I had started to record Nachshon’s own commentary on his work and wanted to finish it in Eretz Yisroel.
As I walked past the Rebbe, he looked at me with his piercing blue eyes that went straight through me, and said, “Besuros Tovos” (good tidings). Seemingly quite an ordinary blessing to give, which the Rebbe no doubt said to many, yet those words with their grammatical make up – good tidings in the plural, and the minimum plural is two – empowered me to receive it as a Brocho for the two tasks I needed to accomplish in the few days in Eretz Yisroel. So I felt I could accomplish both objectives. At Mincha on Shabbos Parshas Ki Seitzei, my last Shabbos before leaving NY for the Holy Land, I had an Aliya in 770 “upstairs” in the coming parsha of Ki Savo, which contained the words “And it will be when you come to the
Land…And you will come to the Kohen…” This brought to mind a Rabbi in Eretz Yisroel who might grant me my second s’micha, namely the Chief Rabbi of Haifa, Rabbi She’ar Yoshev Cohen, whom I had met in Australia when he was hosted by Menachem Khoen. He was the “ and you will come to the Kohen”. And so it was. I called him from my brother’s home in Jerusalem and he agreed to see me. I travelled up to Haifa and came back in a day with the s’micha. Equally miraculous for me, I managed to get out to Kiryat Arbah (in a bus with bullet-proof windows and soldiers on board) and spend Shabbos and a bit more (during which I completed and recorded my conversation) with Baruch Nachshon about his art. All of this happened in days and – as Chassidim say – with the kochos of the Rebbe.
Any stories with the Rebbe you can share with us?
Whilst in Yeshivah Primary School, my son Sruli once had an accident on playground equipment and broke his upper arm quite badly (a difficult place to mend). We took him to hospital straight away. Rabbi Groner was very upset about the whole incident and we contacted the Rebbe for a blessing. I do not recall all the details exactly. A break in this bone is normally healed through setting the arm in a plaster cast and letting the bones fuse – that is, when the broken bones are aligned along the break. However, a first surgical intervention under general anesthetic was not successful and I think there was discussion of pinning the bones. Sruli was put under a second general anesthetic but they discovered a nonalignment of the bones, which would not allow that procedure either. There was talk now of a third intervention. My wife and I were distressed at the thought of this little boy undergoing a third general anesthetic and contacted the Rebbe’s secretary, Rabbi Leibel Groner, with news of the development. Rabbi Leibel Groner’s response was – referring to our initial contact with the Rebbe, when Sruli was taken to hospital – “the Rebbe has already given his blessing”. Thereafter we received a call from the hospital. They had taken X-rays, ahead of the planned third anesthetic and operation, which showed that the bones had by themselves come into alignment! There was now no need to operate, the upper arm would be placed in a cast and would heal naturally, as it did.
What was your relationship with Rabbi Groner A”H like?
To me, the greatness of Rabbi Groner A”H was that he knew how to – and did – promote the talents and potentials of individuals. He was a volcanic personality; when it erupted it was scary but benign. It happened once that a Melbourne evening paper, called The Herald, wanted to interview Rabbi Groner, as it had a number of prominent individuals, to ascertain from him “the principles by which you live”. He wrote out his answer and then gave it to me for editing. One of his principles, that has remained with me, was “never to be jealous of other peoples’ talents and
Rabbi and Rebbetzin Groner z”l
abilities”. That for me epitomized Rabbi Groner and the phenomenal success he had. He was there to help others grow and to encourage them to contribute. He would always push us to publish books, to take leadership positions, and so on, and in this way the Yeshivah community and Chabad in Australia, and all that it spawned, grew phenomenally.
Out of the blue, he said to me, “I will support you for the first full year”.
When I ended up leaving Kollel in February 1998, I went to Rabbi Groner and told him I wanted to establish my own Institute – which would be the Institute for Judaism and Civilization. Out of the blue, he said to me, “I will support you for the first full year”. True to his word, that year he paid me a full wage. He didn’t know what exactly I was doing, he didn’t know where I was doing it, but he had faith in me. It was typical of Rabbi Groner. He sensed I had something to contribute in a new area, and he put resources into it. The second year came and without my asking he said he would cover half my salary for that year. Thanks to his initial help, I was able to continue after that on my own.
What did you do after your long Kollel stint?
I had followed a decade of secular studies at a tertiary study, with more than a decade of learning in the Kollel. What interested me ultimately was the “interface” of the Torah with the secular arts and sciences and issues of general civilization. Hence, I founded “The institute for Judaism and Civilization”.
I began with a series of conferences, first on psychiatry and Judaism (this one was in fact organized while I was still in Kollel as mentioned above), then on the Noahide laws and then on the interface of Jewish and Secular law, and then another on bioethics. I also began a publication, called the Journal of Judaism and Civilization, of which 14 issues have been printed, as well as monograph series, of which some ten have appeared. As time went on, these writings became amalgamated into books. One of the better known of these is on the Noahide laws, The Theory and Practice of Universal Ethics – the Noahide Laws (which has been translated into Spanish and Russian). The most recent is a book on the Australian Jewish artist Bill Chaim Meyer. I have been blessed to be able continue my outreach on a national level attending and conducting conferences and symposia around the world. In more recent years, I have been going to Jerusalem for an annual Noahide Laws conference. I recently presented, with encouragement and help of my friend Mat Gelman, on Viktor Frankl at the World Psychiatric Association Conference on Psychiatry, Spirituality and Religion. Now with the travel restrictions in place I have adapted to teaching and seminars over zoom.
Has your work always been smooth sailing for you?
In 2008 I tried to get involved in the political realm, since it was there – in social legislation – that major societal violations of the Noahide laws (primarily the laws prohibiting killing and gilui arroyos) were occurring and might be rectified. I was also the cofounder of an interfaith group which was set up for this purpose. I must be clear that this was not “ecumenical” interfaith activity, which is halachically unacceptable, but rather an association with faith groups and leaders in order to defend common ground, such as the sanctity of marriage and sacredness of life, which in fact are Noahide values. I started writing and making seminars for politicians, to inform and encourage them towards the values and ideals of the Noahide laws. I also organized bipartisan launches of a book of mine, Politics and Universal
Ethics in six State legislatures. I am not a politician and can be “thrown” when I get too close to the fray of politics. Whatever success I had in this area could be put down to what one politician, who participated in a forum I arranged, called my “disengaged” or somewhat distanced involvement. I like to call this ideal, which suits me, ‘disengaged engagement’, and it is a very difficult balance to maintain.
It really hasn’t all been easy and smooth sailing, and I have come out with bruises. Specifically, in the same gender marriage debate, and all that went with it, I suffered greatly from the University. For many years I was an Honorary University Associate, yet at the height of the same gender marriage debate, activists from the outside convinced some University faculty members to have me removed from the University. This was on account of an article I had written in 2012 critiquing the gender ideology to which young and susceptible children were being exposed under the so (mis)named “Safe Schools” program. They wrote to the Vice Chancellor of the University and unfortunately, he listened, issuing a statement which publicly dissociated the University from the “views of Dr Cowen”. Although he did later apologize and bring me back as a higher-level associate in the University, it was a very frightening experience when a University of over 70,000 staff and students in campuses in Australia and other parts of the world publicly distanced itself from one.
A similar thing happened three years later. There was a new Vice Chancellor who decided to put the University behind ‘same gender marriage’, repeating the same error as before. My father, who himself was a Vice Chancellor of two universities, had taught that the function of a public university is to host debate, not to take sides in it. I had been sending out literature in defense of traditional marriage to different people around the country, and used my university email account also for this purpose (as indeed the University’s charter provided for contribution of staff to public debate). Again, some activists saw it, and pressed the Vice Chancellor to remove me from the University. On the basis of “misuse of email”, I was removed from my position in the university for, as I understand it, stating the position of the Noahide laws on marriage. It was an unsettling experience for me and a disturbing reflection on the University.
Shortly thereafter, an independent review was conducted by a former Chief Justice of the High Court of
Seder Bircas Hanehenin
Australia into the state of freedom of speech in the Universities. He produced a code of intellectual freedom for Universities, which they ultimately felt compelled to accept, and I think would not have allowed what happened to me earlier.
During the same debate, a Jewish community publication made a review of a book on marriage and the family, which I had written. The article interviewed some thirteen personalities, every one of whom implicitly or explicitly attacked the book. It seemed they couldn’t find anyone in Australia who held Torah views on the subject. To be fair, I must acknowledge that I was given a right of reply to the article.
I am saying all this to bring out a point. As time goes on, in the current media – including social media – environment, we have the fires of social shaming and defamation. The way the media can create a climate of vilification and intimidation is known. However, I believe one can get strength from this. Shulchon Oruch begins with the injunction not to be shamed by the maligim, those who ridicule (and now those who shame and intimidate). Just as other times have had their great nisiyonos, be it political terror or open persecution, the darkness of the present age is (social or news) media defamation and intimidation. Just as Torah and some mesirus nefesh can dispel other forms of darkness, it can dispel this darkness, which has no truth or substance. People have neshomos, which can, and G-d willing ultimately will, be touched and awakened. They simply need to hear the voice of Torah, if we can raise that voice.
You have spoken about the “second hand” Shlichusen you have had. Please explain.
It has happened on a couple of occasions that I have heard of something the Rebbe wanted done and had requested from a particular individual, but for whatever reason that person was unable to do it; I felt, however, that it was something which I could and would do. That’s what I call a “second-hand shlichus”. I was told by Mat Gelman, that Rabbi Abraham Twerski A”H was asked by the Rebbe to promote the work of Viktor Frankl (of whose psychological method, “logotherapy”, the Rebbe thought highly) with a biography of Frankl or something of that sort, but for some reason, notwithstanding his great and many achievements, he didn’t end up doing it. I thought to myself that this is something the Rebbe wants, I feel a cheshek for it and think it is something I could in some way do. Mat informed me that Frankl had a niece, Liesl Kosma, who lived in Melbourne. We visited her and she pulled out a box of Frankl’s German books, which she let me take, and since I knew German from my time and studies in Germany, I began translating selected essays (I also persuaded her to translate one, which was published in the Institute’s journal).
In 2003 I went to Vienna to visit members of Frankl’s family (he had passed away in 1997) – his nonJewish widow, Eleonore, his sonin-law Professor Franz Vesely and another scholar Alex Batthyanyi close to the family. There his widow showed me the Tefillin that he would regularly don, along with a talis koton which he had tried to make for himself. She related, that at night whilst in bed he would recite the book of Psalms. This has been related as part of a larger story about Frankl told by Rabbi Y. Y. Jacobson. Over the years I made conferences and symposia on Viktor Frankl, including one in collaboration with Chabad on campus at the University of Pennsylvania. A few months ago, I published a book of translations of the works of Victor Frankl called The Rediscovery of the Human – Psychological Writings of Viktor E Frankl on the Human in the Image of the Divine. In my Introduction to this book, I try to show how his psychological theory fits with Torah Judaism, no doubt a reason why the Rebbe wanted so strongly to promote his work.
Another “second hand” Shlichus came my way when I was travelling abroad. I had encountered a
Lubavitcher Melamed named Yaakov Rogalsky who, together with Chaim Clorfene, published a book called, “The Path of the Righteous Gentile”, an early work in English on the Noahide laws. When I met Rogalsky – I think at a Shabbaton in Monsey – he related that he had a dream in which the Rebbe said to him that he should promote the Noahide laws amongst faculty at the prestigious “Ivy League” Universities in America. He told me that he felt that he didn’t have the right credentials for the job, and didn’t think he would be able to do it. I felt, however, that I could. So, in 2004 with some financial help from the Pratt Foundation headed by Sam Lipski, I took the shlichus upon myself and, with the help of Shluchim on the various campuses, made a tour of a number of US East Coast Universities including some Ivy League ones – the University of Pennsylvania and Princeton University – conducting seminars with faculty on the Noahide Laws.
Any final remarks?
There is an absolute incomparability (b’ayn aroich) between the Rebbe and his Chassidim. Yet between the older Chassidim and us there is not: they are in many ways greater than us, but we can relate, and strive to measure up, to their qualities. I believe I gained much of my Yiddishkeit from listening and speaking to the Eltere (older) Chassidim. The older generation has so much to give from their stories and their life experiences. We have to take up the opportunity whilst we can, to learn as much as we can from them. Things aren’t the way they used to be in the Yeshivah community. There isn’t just one Shul where almost everyone sits together. Earlier, it was common for three generations to be Davening together in the one row. Sadly, the kesher (connection) between the generations – and the practical example of the older generations to the younger ones – has been weakened. I understand why we have so many different Minyanim nowadays: to strengthen Yiddishkeit under modern challenges, it is important for everyone to feel comfortable in their “customised” minyanim. Yet we can’t forget that we, the Jewish nation, are compared to a Shalsheles (a chain of tradition and generations) and it’s so important to recognize and respect the generations (the links in the chain) which precede us. By respecting, watching and listening to them – in addition to our own birurim – we become better people, and have something, to transmit down the chain of tradition of Yiddishkeit.
The Rediscovery of the Human
