Why in fact, at the end of this very long fast, does the rabbi introduce a subject that has no ostensible connection to the theme of the day? If he seeks to turn away from imponderable matters of historical suffering and toward governable matters of practical religious conduct, there are undoubtedly any number of areas of spiritual laxity that need shoring up. It is far from clear that in the community of Buczacz at that moment the temptation to speak during the reading of the Torah has the status of a clear and present danger. For when the rabbi begins to turn his attention to the subject he goes so far as to admit that, even though he has heard of the problem, he himself has not seen it with his own eyes (47). The rabbi, to be sure, is in possession of secret knowledge that the townspeople are not privy to. In his journey to Gehinnom, he has seen graphic evidence of the severity of the issue and its persistence over many centuries. It is this long view that may account for why the rabbi, whose last public discourse this is before his death six months later, insists on addressing an area of conduct that is not an acute need of the present moment. Now, Rabbi Moshe is a holy sage who, at least in the shamash’s mind, is endowed with ruaḥ haqodesh, prophetic foresight. Is it not then possible that the rabbi is in fact directing his words not to the present faithful of Buczacz, the meager remnants of the massacres, the community of two hundred souls who stand as they listen to rabbi’s long homily because their synagogue does not yet have chairs or benches, but rather to the Buczacz of some fifty-four years later, whose inhabitants have multiplied and whose merchants have grown prosperous enough to forget when the word of God takes precedence over the casuistry of their sons-in-law?
This speculation gives birth to another speculation. The depiction of the rabbi comes to us wholly through the eyes and lips of the shamash, who selects behaviors, incidents and quotations in order to construct the figure of his venerated master. The shamash lives long into the period of Buczacz’s reconstruction and prosperity even as he observes disturbing signs of spiritual complacency in matters concerning which he knows there are dire consequences. Might not the shamash have exercised a preemptive prophetic wisdom on behalf of the rabbi? Might not the parables that concluded the rabbi’s long discourse have been “retrofitted” through the work of the imagination to yield an older wisdom that would have the éclat of prophetic authority when they would be most needed?
Whatever their etiology, the parables can in no meaningful sense be construed to constitute the climax of the story, or the distillation of its meaning, or the banner under which the reader first encounters the text. As a title, The Parable and Its Lesson [Hamashal vehanimshal] is a decoy or a counter that draws our attention away from the unstable and contending binaries of the story.
THE HOLY COMMUNITY OF BUCZACZ
As the shamash concludes his tale and the narrator resumes direct narration of the story, a new character moves to center stage: the holy community of Buczacz. One of the great questions that haunts Agnon’s epic cycle of Buczacz stories as a whole is whether a community can in fact be conceived of as a character and function like one. Can a social organism exercise the will and agency that we associate with the great figures of fiction? Can a town meaningfully function as the protagonist of a formidable cycle of stories? ‘Ir umelo’ah is the large canvas on which Agnon experiments with this proposition. Although we can reckon with these questions only by taking the whole cycle into account, the final sections of our story give us a glimpse how this collective portraiture might work.
The last four chapters of the story (24–27) present a complex picture of how the community of Buczacz absorbs and processes the extraordinary new information revealed by the shamash’s tale. Throughout these pages, Buczacz is spoken about as a single collective, as when the narrator begins Chapter 24 with the statement “The shamash’s words left Buczacz astounded” (‘amdah Bitshatsh temihah, 58); or when verbs in the third person plural are used to convey concerted action on the part of the inhabitants of the town as a whole. Although the distinct behavior of some subgroups is pointed out, the corporate identity of Buczacz is maintained throughout.
The first response of Buczacz is cognitive disorientation. It was always taken for granted that “talking generally brings people together and dispels worry, while silence is usually a sign of sorrow and suffering” (58–59), and now this commonsense conviction has been powerfully refuted. Dealing with the contradiction brings out the dialectical acumen of the town, and it is in the course of their arguments that they come to admit the logic of the shamash’s arguments and acknowledge how even learned human discourse can become an affront to God’s honor and generosity. After having grasped the point intellectually, they begin to confront the dread and anxiety that inevitably follow in the wake of this realization.
A series of groans came forth from the assembled. First from despair, and then from trepidation, for even when one takes care not to talk during the services or the Torah reading, there are times when one simply cannot control oneself and things that serve purposes neither lofty nor base come out. (59)
Reviewing their Sabbath morning practices with an honest eye, the townspeople are constrained to admit that rarely a week goes by when some words of the Torah reading are not drowned out or otherwise lost by well-meaning (or sarcastic) remarks correcting the reader and by the commotion they provoke.
Within this general spiritual reckoning, there are those who are especially receptive to this heightened stringency because they have already intuited its truth but not yet grasped its enormity. They not only immediately take upon themselves the rule of silence in synagogue but, in a way that would have gratified the shamash’s master Rabbi Moshe, also extend the principle of avoiding unnecessary speech to behavior in the marketplace and in the home. At the same time, there are others in the community who, while accepting the validity of the new stricture, give themselves over to an obsessive and even lurid fascination with the details of Gehinnom. Are there fallen angels there? Are the tortures interrupted on the Sabbath? Do they say the same prayers we do? What happens to their clothes and their fringed undergarments after their bodies cease to exist? “There was no end to their questions,” the narrator informs us, “and because they had not yet learned to restrain their tongues, those tongues nattered on with abandon” (61). Absorbed in the sensational revelations of the shamash’s tale, they have allowed the real import of the story to pass by them.
Yet, in the final analysis, the townspeople of Buczacz do the right thing. They recognize that the shamash’s precipitating act of public humiliation was in fact a gesture of self-sacrifice, and instead of fining him and removing him from his office, they restore him to public honor and give him the special task of standing on the bimah during the Torah reading and vigilantly surveying the congregation for errant instances of idle chatter. This is but one instance of the procedures and safeguards the elders put into effect so that the new discipline will be made a permanent part of the religious life of the town.
The willingness of Buczacz to rectify its ways, in other words, gives the story a happy ending, at least in the classic sense in which the bonds of society are reconstituted after a threat to their cohesion. It remains unclear, however, whether the positive ending outweighs the grave instances of suffering so strongly adduced earlier in the story concerning the aftermath of 1648 and in the compartments of Gehinnom. These two sources of tragic undertow, we have seen, contend at every level of the story with the moral issue of divine and human speech, the former the result of ungovernable forces and the latter more susceptible to human agency. Through his narrator, Agnon formerly converts the story into a comedy by devoting the final chapters to the successful repentance of the town. In metaphysical and aesthetic terms, however, the ending comes across as less of a consummation than an act of will. To the threat posed by the corrosive and deconstructive forces of unexplained suffering — in this world and the next — the story offers the example of Buczacz as a qehilah qedoshah, a holy community that is imperfect but capable of religious renewal.