Punishment vs. Forgiveness Theme Analysis

Near the end of “Gimpel the Fool,” Gimpel receives a crushing deathbed confession from his wife, Elka, that she has been cheating on him for years and that none of their six children are really his. Soon after this revelation, Gimpel is visited, in a dream, by the Spirit of Evil who proposes that Gimpel, a baker, urinate in the bread he will sell to the other villagers to eat the next day, thus deceiving them for a change. It is no accident that the story makes the Spirit of Evil, rather than Gimpel himself, the one to first have this idea. As the story portrays it, the desire to punish is evil. Although it might seem that Gimpel’s revenge would be justified, as his neighbors have already caused him so much pain throughout his life, “Gimpel the Fool” suggests that the correct response to such harmful behavior is not revenge—fighting evil with evil—but forgiveness. Gimpel himself reflects at one point, “I wanted to be angry, but that’s my misfortune exactly, I don’t have it in me to be really angry.” The story suggests that this trait is actually Gimpel’s strength, his literal good fortune, the thing that prevents him from doing evil to others and ensures his own goodness now and in the afterlife.

While it might seem natural for Gimpel to resent and crave vengeance against those who have wronged him, he realizes that doing evil—even in response to evil—is never justified. Early on, the rabbi cautions Gimpel never to be evil: “better to be a fool your days than for one hour to be evil […] he who causes his neighbor to feel shame loses paradise himself.” The endless mockery and degradation Gimpel suffers from his neighbors certainly meets this definition of evil. But the problem with the idea of punishing his neighbors for their cruelty is that it would require Gimpel to do evil, too. He would have to willfully bring pain and shame to them. Part of what makes Gimpel such a good person is his extreme reluctance to ever do this. Gimpel does momentarily succumb to the temptation to punish when the Spirit of Evil proposes his revenge scheme. But Elka visits him in a dream and reminds him that such a choice to hurt others is itself a crime, which may jeopardize his place in Paradise. Elka demands, “Because I was false, is everything false?” She calls upon Gimpel to be a beacon of goodness and honesty in a too often corrupt world, to do his part in saving the world from becoming entirely evil. This intervention inspires Gimpel to abandon his plan, a decision the story suggests is crucial for his fate in the next life.

Gimpel is also keenly aware of how easy it is for people to make mistakes; therefore, he finds it difficult to judge them too harshly for doing so. For example, while Gimpel is dismayed to catch Elka cheating, he reasons that making mistakes is an inevitable part of the human condition: “there’s bound to be a slip up sometimes. You can’t live without errors.” If messing up is something that everybody must, at times, do, Gimpel feels that they deserve forgiveness. Gimpel acknowledges that he himself does not always act rightly. His passion for Elka, for instance, has made him into a thief. He is so eager to please her he regularly steals from the bakery, including from the pots of food women bring in to warm in the over. Timidly he expresses a “hope [he] may be forgiven” for this. Just as he would like forgiveness for himself, he feels an imperative to forgive rather than inflict punishment on others. The only one with a right to judge and punish, as Gimpel sees it, is a perfect being—that is, God.

Gimpel’s forgiving attitude ultimately brings him much more satisfaction than revenge or punishment ever could. He is, by nature, not an angry or punishing person. Unlike many of the townspeople, or the Spirit of Evil, it brings him no satisfaction to make others suffer. What Gimpel likes best is to love people. He is miserable when he is apart from Elka, even though leaving her to fend for herself might be an effective way to punish her for her offenses. He always becomes happier whenever they reunite, even though those reunions usually involve her getting off the hook for bad behavior. Furthermore, because people are imperfect, love necessarily requires forgiveness. Gimpel understands throughout his marriage that getting to be with the person he adores requires that he tolerate her significant faults: he showers her with affection despite her constant harsh mockery. He decides to set aside feelings of resentment so that he can get the most out of his love for her.

For Singer, the desire to punish evil is itself an evil. His hero Gimpel, therefore, sets aside the temptation to get back at those who have wronged him, concentrating instead on forgiveness and love. The story’s moral calculus is complex, to be sure, but it suggests that as long as Gimpel continues to be generous to people rather than cruel, he will be happier in this life, and his prospects for the afterlife will be safe.