“Why the Geese Shrieked”: Isaac Bashevis Singer’s Work Between Mysticism and Scepticism

In a chapter of his memoirs, the acclaimed Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer grants his readers some insight into the life of his father’s rabbinic household in Warsaw – a household full of contrasts and tensions between his parents’ conflicting personalities, between Hasidic and Mitnagdic tendencies and between mysticism and scepticism. Both his father’s mysticism and his mother’s scepticism were formative influences on Bashevis, and his writing constantly vacillates between these two world-views. Bashevis is well-known for his short stories about demons, dybbuks and other supernatural phenomena, but it is interesting to note that at times his demons clearly seem to be external manifestations of internal, psychological states of being, whereas at other times no rational explanation for an apparent supernatural phenomenon can be found. Bashevis’s narrators and protagonists constantly question God and express their scepticism about traditional Jewish beliefs, while, on the other hand, they are deeply influenced by Jewish mystical ideas. The conflict between rationalism and mysticism, between modern philosophy and Jewish religious beliefs, especially Kabbalistic ideas, never gets resolved in Bashevis’s works, but this continuous tension is exactly what makes Bashevis such a great writer! In the second chapter of his memoirs בוטש ןיד-תיב סנטאַט ןײַמ (In My Father’s Court), entitled “ןגירשעג ןבאָה זדנעג יד סאָװראַפ” (“Why the Geese Shrieked”), the acclaimed Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904 – 1991) grants his readers some significant insight into the life of his father’s rabbinic household on Krokhmalne-gas (ulica Krochmalna) in Warsaw, a household full of contrasts and tensions between his parents’ conflicting personalities, between Hasidic and Mitnagdic tendencies and between mysticism and scepticism.1 Bashevis’s father, Rabbi Pinkhes-Mendl Zinger, was descended from an illustrious line of rabbis, scholars and Kabbalists. He was a believer in Hasidism and a follower of the Radzymin Rebe.2 Yitskhok’s mother, Basheve Zinger, née Zilberman, was the youngest daughter of the highly-respected rabbi of Biłgoraj, who was the undisputed authority of his town, an outstanding scholar and a Mitnaged, an opponent of Hasidism. Basheve herself was a rationalist and an intellectual and was sceptical by nature. She was also much more scholarly than other women of a similar background and position in society.3 The  Khayke Beruriah Wiegand is the Woolf Corob Lector in Yiddish at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (University of Oxford). Email: BeruriahWiegand@aol.com 1 Yitskhok Bashevis-Zinger, בוטש ןיד-תיב סנטאַט ןײַמ [In My Father’s Court] (Tel Aviv: Y.L. Perets, 1979), 15-19. This is a reprint of the first edition (New York: Kval, 1956), but without the author’s introduction. For an English translation, see Isaac Bashevis Singer, In My Father’s Court, trans. Channah Kleinerman-Goldstein, Elaine Gottlieb and Joseph Singer (London: Penguin, 1979), 19-24. This is a reprint of the first edition (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1966). 2 Ibid. Yiddish: 140-41, 149-50. English: 45-46, 52-53. 3 Ibid. Yiddish: 16, 18-19, 143-44. English: 20, 23-24, 47-48. See also Janet Hadda, Isaac Bashevis Singer: A Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 19. MELILAH MANCHESTER JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES 12 (2015) 146 diametrically opposed characters and temperaments of Yitskhok’s parents, his father’s Hasidic enthusiasm and his mother’s rationalism and scepticism, were the source of constant friction in the Zinger household. In the second chapter of his memoirs, Bashevis informs his readers that his father liked to speak about dybbuks, demons and gilgulim (transmigrated souls) and that he believed in hidden powers.4 Thus when a woman brought the rabbi two decapitated geese, which shrieked when they were hurled together, Pinkhes-Mendl expressed a mixture of fear and vindication and was convinced that signs from Heaven were sent to him. The shrieking geese seemed to confirm Pinkhes-Mendl’s mysticism and question Basheve’s rationalism. Basheve, however, a Mitnagdic rabbi’s daughter and a sceptic by nature, found a rational explanation for the apparent mystery. She removed the windpipes of the geese and asked the woman to hurl the birds together again. : טליפּשראַפ ץלאַ טאַהעג רעטומ ןײמ טאָה ,ןעײרש רעדיװ ןלעװ זנעג יד ביוא : תלוקשמ ףיוא ןעגנאַהעג טאָה ץלאַ ופיקת עשי'דגנתמ עצנאַג ריא םעד ,ןדמל םעד רעטאָפ ריא ןופ ט'נשרי'עג טאָה יז סאָװ ,םזיציטפּעקס ןצנאַג ריא ,ת ןזאָלסיוראַ ןלאָז ײז ...ןעײרש אָי ןלאָז זנעג יד זאַ טאָג ןטעבעג ךיא באָה ,ןקאָרשרעד ןעװעג ןיב ךיא שטאָכ .דגנתמ ...ןפיולנעמאַזוצ ךיז לאָז'מ ןוא סאַג ןיא ןרעה לאָז'מ זאַ ,ײרשעג אַזאַ זנעג יד ! ײװ רעבאָ .ןעלגראָג ןאָ זנעג עטיוט ײװצ ןגײװש ראָנ ןענאָק סע יװ ןגיװשעג ןבאָה Everything hung in the balance. If the geese shrieked, Mother would have lost all: her rationalist’s daring, her skepticism which she had inherited from her intellectual father. And I? Although I was afraid, I prayed inwardly that the geese would shriek, shriek so loud that people in the street would hear and come running. But alas, the geese were silent, silent as only two dead geese without windpipes can be.5 It is interesting to note that although the young Yitskhok was afraid and ran to his mother for protection, he sided with his father and his belief in supernatural powers, hoping the geese would shriek again. But, of course, they did not, and Yitskhok had an opportunity to observe the powerlessness of his father’s mystical faith when faced with his mother’s rationalism. After the incident with the geese, the story ends as follows: אַ וצ יװ רימ וצ ןדער ןעמונעג לאָמאַ טימ טאָה רע .ןטאַט ן'טימ ןבילבעג ןיב ךיא .ךיק ןיא ןײראַ קירוצ זיא עמאַמ יד קאַװרעד .םענעס ...דגנתמ רעטלאַק אַ רעבאָ ,ןואג אַ עקאַט זיא רע .בר רעײראָגליב םעד ,ןדײז ןײד ןיא ןײראַ טאָרעג יז ...ןתח אַ ןראָװעג ןיב'כ רעדײא טנראָװעג ךימ טאָה'מ ...ןפּאַכקירוצ טשינ ןיוש ךודיש םעד ןעמ ןאָק טציא : ןגאָז וצ יװ טנאַה רעד טימ ךאַמ אַ ןאָטעג טאָה עטאַט רעד ןוא Mother went back to the kitchen. I remained with my father. Suddenly he began to speak to me as though I were an adult. “Your mother takes after your grandfather, the Rabbi of Bilgoray. He is a great scholar, but a cold-blooded rationalist. People warned me before our betrothal...” And then Father threw up his hands, as if to say: It is too late now to call off the wedding.6 In this chapter from Bashevis’s memoirs, his Hasidic father interprets the shrieking geese as a sign from Heaven and a proof of supernatural forces being at work in the world, whereas his sceptical Mitnagdic mother endeavours to find a rational explanation for this 4 Bashevis-Zinger, בוטש ןיד-תיב סנטאַט ןײַמ [In My Father’s Court], 15-16. Bashevis Singer, In My Father’s Court, 19-20. 5 Ibid. Yiddish: 19. English: 23. 6 Ibid. Yiddish: 19. English: 24. “WHY THE GEESE SHRIEKED” (WIEGAND) 147 phenomenon. This incident is a poignant example of the conflict between Pinkhes-Mendl’s mysticism and Basheve’s rationalism as experienced by their son, and although Yitskhok has to acknowledge that his mother’s rational explanations and arguments are usually correct, he is also fascinated by his father’s mysticism, and various motifs connected to his father’s mystical worldview can be traced in his works as a mature Yiddish writer. Throughout his life, he remained convinced that Jews like his father, who believed in Jewish folklore, in spirits and demons, were not “superstitious,” as Janet Hadda has pointed out, but were “Jews of the highest moral and religious integrity.” They “expressed their faith in God’s wonders and miracles,” and “when cynical or rationalistic Jews reveal these demons to be an illusion,” as Bashevis’s mother did in this episode, “their literalmindedness does not diminish the admiration the narrator feels for those who by contrast had complete faith in miracles and the mysteries of divine power.”7 But both his father’s mysticism and his mother’s scepticism were formative influences on Bashevis, and his writing constantly vacillates between these two worldviews. In an interview with Grace Farrell, Bashevis said of his parents: My mother was a skeptic and my father was a believer. But let me tell you, there is a believer in every skeptic and there is a doubter in every believer, because no matter how much you believe there is always a spark of doubt in you which asks how do you know this is true. And again the skeptic would not be a real skeptic if he were not a believer. [...] Skeptics are people who would like to believe but they would like to get proof for their belief. And this proof can never be really obtained.8 Bashevis is well-known for his short stories about demons, dybbuks and other supernatural phenomena, but it is interesting to note that at times his demons clearly seem to be external manifestations of internal, psychological states of being, whereas at other times no rational explanation for an apparent supernatural phenomenon can be found, as in the case of the shed that mysteriously disappears and reappears in his short story “ןװיוא ןרעטניה ןופֿ תוישׂעמ” (“Stories from behind the Stove”).9 Zalmen Glezer, one of the three narrators in this story tells his listeners in the house of study about a certain Reb Zelig, a home-owner in the shtetl of Bloyne, whose shed suddenly disappeared one morning together with everything that had been inside, like wood, flax, potatoes, etc. The sceptics of the town, including the Maskilic pharmacist R. Falik, and the Polish non-Jewish doctor 7 See Janet Hadda, “Folk and Folklore in the Work of Bashevis,” in The Hidden Isaac Bashevis Singer, ed. Seth Wolitz (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001), 170. 8 Grace Farrell, “Seeing and Blindness: A Conversation with Isaac Bashevis Singer,” in Isaac Bashevis Singer: Conversations, ed. Grace Farrell (Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, 1992), 133. The interview was first published in Novel: A Forum on Fiction, 9:2, Wi