What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trial of God:
Where is God when innocent human beings suffer? This drama lays bare the most vexing questions confronting the moral imagination.
Set in a Ukranian village in the year 1649, this haunting play takes place in the aftermath of a pogrom. Only two Jews, Berish the innkeeper and his daughter Hannah, have survived the brutal Cossack raids. When three itinerant actors arrive in town to perform a Purim play, Berish demands that they stage a mock trial of God instead, indicting Him for His silence in the face of evil. Berish, a latter-day Job, is ready to take on the role of prosecutor. But who will defend God? A mysterious stranger named Sam, who seems oddly familiar to everyone present, shows up just in time to volunteer.
The idea for this play came from an event that Elie Wiesel witnessed as a boy in Auschwitz: "Three rabbis--all erudite and pious men--decided one evening to indict God for allowing His children to be massacred. I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But there nobody cried."
Inspired and challenged by this play, Christian theologians Robert McAfee Brown and Matthew Fox, in a new Introduction and Afterword, join Elie Wiesel in the search for faith in a world where God is silent.
Set in a Ukranian village in the year 1649, this haunting play takes place in the aftermath of a pogrom. Only two Jews, Berish the innkeeper and his daughter Hannah, have survived the brutal Cossack raids. When three itinerant actors arrive in town to perform a Purim play, Berish demands that they stage a mock trial of God instead, indicting Him for His silence in the face of evil. Berish, a latter-day Job, is ready to take on the role of prosecutor. But who will defend God? A mysterious stranger named Sam, who seems oddly familiar to everyone present, shows up just in time to volunteer.
The idea for this play came from an event that Elie Wiesel witnessed as a boy in Auschwitz: "Three rabbis--all erudite and pious men--decided one evening to indict God for allowing His children to be massacred. I remember: I was there, and I felt like crying. But there nobody cried."
Inspired and challenged by this play, Christian theologians Robert McAfee Brown and Matthew Fox, in a new Introduction and Afterword, join Elie Wiesel in the search for faith in a world where God is silent.
177 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1979
59 people are currently reading
3174 people want to read
About the author
Elie Wiesel
271 books4,491 followersEliezer "Elie" Wiesel was a Romanian-born American writer, professor, political activist, Nobel laureate, and Holocaust survivor. He authored 57 books, written mostly in French and English, including Night, a work based on his experiences as a Jewish prisoner in the Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps.
In his political activities Wiesel became a regular speaker on the subject of the Holocaust and remained a strong defender of human rights during his lifetime. He also advocated for many other causes like the state of Israel and against Hamas and victims of oppression including Soviet and Ethiopian Jews, the apartheid in South Africa, the Bosnian genocide, Sudan, the Kurds and the Armenian genocide, Argentina's Desaparecidos or Nicaragua's Miskito people.
He was a professor of the humanities at Boston University, which created the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies in his honor. He was involved with Jewish causes and human rights causes and helped establish the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.
Wiesel was awarded various prestigious awards including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He was a founding board member of the New York Human Rights Foundation and remained active in it throughout his life.
In his political activities Wiesel became a regular speaker on the subject of the Holocaust and remained a strong defender of human rights during his lifetime. He also advocated for many other causes like the state of Israel and against Hamas and victims of oppression including Soviet and Ethiopian Jews, the apartheid in South Africa, the Bosnian genocide, Sudan, the Kurds and the Armenian genocide, Argentina's Desaparecidos or Nicaragua's Miskito people.
He was a professor of the humanities at Boston University, which created the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies in his honor. He was involved with Jewish causes and human rights causes and helped establish the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.
Wiesel was awarded various prestigious awards including the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. He was a founding board member of the New York Human Rights Foundation and remained active in it throughout his life.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews
January 6, 2020
Elie Wiesel has, in "Night," his autobiographical account of his Auschwitz experience (1972), and in his essay on the Book of Job in "Messengers of God" (1976), expressed his searing anger at the Jewish God’s seeming indifference to the pain He causes to those who worship him. Wiesel took on this theme again in "The Trial of God" (published 1979), but this time he seemed far more tentative and uncertain, setting the book, which is actually a play, in 1649, and offering both a confusing prosecution and a confusing defense of God from a character who turns out to be Satan.
And he has a great deal of difficulty getting to the actual trial, spending 125 pages of a 160 page play in preliminary off-the-main-point conversations between the characters before the trial begins. It almost seems as if Wiesel had frightened himself by his earlier condemnations of God and is now far less certain of his case. Given the audacity of his theme, that reluctance to brace the issue is surely understandable, and it leaves the reader where any reader knows he will be, furious with God and uncertain as to what to do about those feelings.
The important questions are all unresolved, as they must be. Did God know what was happening at Auschwitz and let it happen? Did God not know, and if so, why not? Is there actually a God who even cares about human affairs? I personally respond better to the Wiesel who condemned the Biblical Job for forgiving the God who had capriciously destroyed him than I do to the Wiesel who allows the trial of God to end without a verdict, but it is the latter Wiesel who may more accurately portray where we humans must ultimately be in relation to the unknowable.
And he has a great deal of difficulty getting to the actual trial, spending 125 pages of a 160 page play in preliminary off-the-main-point conversations between the characters before the trial begins. It almost seems as if Wiesel had frightened himself by his earlier condemnations of God and is now far less certain of his case. Given the audacity of his theme, that reluctance to brace the issue is surely understandable, and it leaves the reader where any reader knows he will be, furious with God and uncertain as to what to do about those feelings.
The important questions are all unresolved, as they must be. Did God know what was happening at Auschwitz and let it happen? Did God not know, and if so, why not? Is there actually a God who even cares about human affairs? I personally respond better to the Wiesel who condemned the Biblical Job for forgiving the God who had capriciously destroyed him than I do to the Wiesel who allows the trial of God to end without a verdict, but it is the latter Wiesel who may more accurately portray where we humans must ultimately be in relation to the unknowable.
Read
April 29, 2019A friend told me about having read this short book after coming across a reference to it. He hadn't known it was a play but read through it in two sittings. He gave me a review he'd found of the book that made sense of it for him, while advising me to hold off reading it until I'd finished the play. I did hold off, which let me assemble some impressions of my own. As far as I was concerned, this book is part of the genre known as "Holocaust theology;" the title gave that away. I also saw allusions to the 17th century "false messiahs" and to the Jewish role of the satan (but turned on its head?). I hadn't seen coming the input from the review my friend had found -- nor did the review make note of the connections the play had raised for me.
I thought there was too much irrelevant stage business that went on too long and failed to help me feel what the characters were feeling or quite who they were. Also, I'd previously learned that the word "pogrom" came into common usage only around 1900, so when the playwright says the setting is 1649, just after a pogrom -- and he's pretty clear what he intended -- then I'm confused. The dates convinced me the setting must be Poland.
Yet again, I could be thrown off because I'm not used to reading plays.
Or I don't trust my impressions because it's by the sainted Elie Wiesel.
The setting is a small tavern and inn. We are told it's 1649 and there has just been a pogrom. Only these few Jews are left alive: the proprietor Berish, three visiting minstrels of which one, Mendel, stands out as of more substance, and Berish's daughter Hanna, who flits in and out rarely. Another bit part belongs to the seductive Priest who also informs those present that another pogrom is going to happen to correct the mistake of their having been left alive. He offers to save them by converting them. The other main character is the Christian barmaid/servant girl Maria, who is respectful and supportive of Berish, her master. The minstrels want to celebrate Purim, the Jewish carnivale commemorating the events of the book of Esther, by drinking and putting on an escapist Purimschpiel -- an often bawdy musical comedy. Through the events of the first two scenes, the reader becomes aware of the awful traumas the characters have experienced and witnessed. The bitter and inconsolable Berish rails against God, who has permitted these events to happen, and the characters resolve to make their spiel into a trial of God in absentia. But the trial is held up because there is no defense attorney. So what is the significance of the character who shows up to fill that role?
There. Recounting the goings-on helped. But I still can't rate this book.
The aforementioned review: http://www.oocities.org/webofrob/rege...
I thought there was too much irrelevant stage business that went on too long and failed to help me feel what the characters were feeling or quite who they were. Also, I'd previously learned that the word "pogrom" came into common usage only around 1900, so when the playwright says the setting is 1649, just after a pogrom -- and he's pretty clear what he intended -- then I'm confused. The dates convinced me the setting must be Poland.
Yet again, I could be thrown off because I'm not used to reading plays.
Or I don't trust my impressions because it's by the sainted Elie Wiesel.
The setting is a small tavern and inn. We are told it's 1649 and there has just been a pogrom. Only these few Jews are left alive: the proprietor Berish, three visiting minstrels of which one, Mendel, stands out as of more substance, and Berish's daughter Hanna, who flits in and out rarely. Another bit part belongs to the seductive Priest who also informs those present that another pogrom is going to happen to correct the mistake of their having been left alive. He offers to save them by converting them. The other main character is the Christian barmaid/servant girl Maria, who is respectful and supportive of Berish, her master. The minstrels want to celebrate Purim, the Jewish carnivale commemorating the events of the book of Esther, by drinking and putting on an escapist Purimschpiel -- an often bawdy musical comedy. Through the events of the first two scenes, the reader becomes aware of the awful traumas the characters have experienced and witnessed. The bitter and inconsolable Berish rails against God, who has permitted these events to happen, and the characters resolve to make their spiel into a trial of God in absentia. But the trial is held up because there is no defense attorney. So what is the significance of the character who shows up to fill that role?
There. Recounting the goings-on helped. But I still can't rate this book.
The aforementioned review: http://www.oocities.org/webofrob/rege...
December 31, 2008
Elie Wiesel was a boy at Auschwitz when he watched prisoners convene a traditional Hebrew court to try God of breaking his sacred covenant with the Jews. PBS's "Masterpiece Theater" excellently dramatizes the trial in its movie "God on Trial", which bears strong influence from Wiesel's play.
Wiesel's 1979 original is not set at the concentration camp. The book's introduction documents his struggles to find a suitable setting for his story; he finally settles on the late middle ages, at an inn of the Ukrainian village Shamgorod. Shamgorod and neighboring villages are beset by constant pogroms, and when three traveling minstrels arrive at the inn to celebrate purim with the Jews of the town, they find the number has been reduced to only two: the innnkeeper and his daughter.
The minstrels, nevertheless determined to drink and make merry (preferably on someone else’s dime) and terrified to leave the safety of the inn, negotiate with the innkeeper to put on a purimschpiel, or a farcical play in honor of the holiday. The furious innkeeper chooses the eponymous topic for evening: the trial of God, with himself as prosecutor. When a mysterious stranger appears to play the defense attorney, the trial begins.
Wiesel’s decision to transpose his experiences into another place and era loosen the 20th-century’s seeming monopoly on mass misery and remind us there is nothing distinctly modern about the problem of evil or the difficulty of faith in the face of the worst forms of human barbarity. The simplicity of its three acts, small cast, and straightforward language leave the need of the characters to believe in something better—Jew and non-Jew alike—in beautiful, haunting relief.
Wiesel's 1979 original is not set at the concentration camp. The book's introduction documents his struggles to find a suitable setting for his story; he finally settles on the late middle ages, at an inn of the Ukrainian village Shamgorod. Shamgorod and neighboring villages are beset by constant pogroms, and when three traveling minstrels arrive at the inn to celebrate purim with the Jews of the town, they find the number has been reduced to only two: the innnkeeper and his daughter.
The minstrels, nevertheless determined to drink and make merry (preferably on someone else’s dime) and terrified to leave the safety of the inn, negotiate with the innkeeper to put on a purimschpiel, or a farcical play in honor of the holiday. The furious innkeeper chooses the eponymous topic for evening: the trial of God, with himself as prosecutor. When a mysterious stranger appears to play the defense attorney, the trial begins.
Wiesel’s decision to transpose his experiences into another place and era loosen the 20th-century’s seeming monopoly on mass misery and remind us there is nothing distinctly modern about the problem of evil or the difficulty of faith in the face of the worst forms of human barbarity. The simplicity of its three acts, small cast, and straightforward language leave the need of the characters to believe in something better—Jew and non-Jew alike—in beautiful, haunting relief.
June 4, 2017
I'm speechless. Every person who seeks to know God should read this. It will challenge you, it will make you question. It may make you cry, even as it makes you laugh. This dark dark comedy reveals truths about the struggles of remaining faithful even in the midst of the deepest of tragedies. I would recommend to all.
April 10, 2019
Potente, bellissimo, terribile.
E aperto a dibattiti, ma assolutamente da leggere.
E aperto a dibattiti, ma assolutamente da leggere.
Read
April 26, 2022It is so hard to rate this book. (So hard in fact that I'm just not going to rate it.) On one hand, I was sometimes a bit bored and some of the characters angered or annoyed me. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that was the point? Also, my edition has an essay at the end of the play which really made me appreciate the play more even though I wouldn't call this an 'enjoyable' read.
April 10, 2019
“La sua genesi: nel regno della notte avevo assistito a un processo veramente strano. Tre rabbini eruditi e pii avevano deciso una sera d’inverno di giudicare Dio del massacro dei suoi figli. Mi ricordo: io ero lì e avevo voglia di piangere. Ma nessuno piangeva.
Allora…”
Chiamare Dio alla sbarra per il male che accade è una tentazione di tutti (anche dei carnefici).
Un bambino, un ragazzo che ha vissuto l’orrore… e che ha avuto il suo Dio e la sua anima assassinati…
“Mai dimenticherò quella notte, la prima notte nel campo, che ha fatto della mia vita una lunga notte e per sette volte sprangata.
Mai dimenticherò quel fumo.
Mai dimenticherò i piccoli volti dei bambini di cui avevo visto i corpi trasformarsi in volute di fumo sotto un cielo muto.
Mai dimenticherò quelle fiamme che bruciarono per sempre la mia Fede.
Mai dimenticherò quel silenzio notturno che mi ha tolto per l'eternità il desiderio di vivere.
Mai dimenticherò quegli istanti che assassinarono il mio Dio e la mia anima, e i miei sogni, che presero il volto del deserto.
Mai dimenticherò tutto ciò, anche se fossi condannato a vivere quanto Dio stesso. Mai”. (Elie Wiesel, La Notte)
C’è un bassorilievo alla fine del percorso dello Yad Vashem di Gerusalemme, che raffigura il medico e pedagogista polacco Januz Korczak, morto a Treblinka nel 1942. Il volto triste, tristissimo, di un’amarezza senza fine che abbraccia i suoi figli morti, i bambini dell’orfanatrofio ebraico del Ghetto di Varsavia.
Ecco… Dio, per me, ha quel volto e quella mestizia, … e quell’abbraccio… e una tenerezza infinita…
Letto una prima volta nel 1986 (gli avrei dato 4 stelline, anche allora). Non so dire altro…
Allora…”
Chiamare Dio alla sbarra per il male che accade è una tentazione di tutti (anche dei carnefici).
Un bambino, un ragazzo che ha vissuto l’orrore… e che ha avuto il suo Dio e la sua anima assassinati…
“Mai dimenticherò quella notte, la prima notte nel campo, che ha fatto della mia vita una lunga notte e per sette volte sprangata.
Mai dimenticherò quel fumo.
Mai dimenticherò i piccoli volti dei bambini di cui avevo visto i corpi trasformarsi in volute di fumo sotto un cielo muto.
Mai dimenticherò quelle fiamme che bruciarono per sempre la mia Fede.
Mai dimenticherò quel silenzio notturno che mi ha tolto per l'eternità il desiderio di vivere.
Mai dimenticherò quegli istanti che assassinarono il mio Dio e la mia anima, e i miei sogni, che presero il volto del deserto.
Mai dimenticherò tutto ciò, anche se fossi condannato a vivere quanto Dio stesso. Mai”. (Elie Wiesel, La Notte)
C’è un bassorilievo alla fine del percorso dello Yad Vashem di Gerusalemme, che raffigura il medico e pedagogista polacco Januz Korczak, morto a Treblinka nel 1942. Il volto triste, tristissimo, di un’amarezza senza fine che abbraccia i suoi figli morti, i bambini dell’orfanatrofio ebraico del Ghetto di Varsavia.
Ecco… Dio, per me, ha quel volto e quella mestizia, … e quell’abbraccio… e una tenerezza infinita…
Letto una prima volta nel 1986 (gli avrei dato 4 stelline, anche allora). Non so dire altro…
May 31, 2021
Some books are a waste of time. This one wasted 3 hours of my life :/
*Spoiler alert*
70% of the book will be done and the trial of God does not even start 😅 And the rest 30% there is barely any noteworthy argument for God or against God. The only purpose that this book serves is that it can be a gift to a person, whose time you want to waste.
There was one beautiful thought in the book though. ‘When one man kills another, is God on the side of the killer or is God actually the victim? By allowing a man to kill another, is God inspiring a reflection and remorse to elevate the living soul to eventual greatness? The alternate choice God has is to kill everyone. But by becoming a victim and letting man reflect on his own nature and choosing love out of freewill, isn’t he creating a better world?’
Ya, when I read that, I was like !! From this book, I learnt that literally anything can be defended by anyone. Even horrific killings of a community, death of children, abuse on women, and above all, the thought that God is above any scrutiny or accountability. And hence, anything done in his name can be overlooked. Such a logic was also written in a force fitted way in the book.
For that one above perspective or learning, I give it the extra star. Else, you would have had better conversations with friends who truly felt the pain of suffering in life.
*Spoiler alert*
70% of the book will be done and the trial of God does not even start 😅 And the rest 30% there is barely any noteworthy argument for God or against God. The only purpose that this book serves is that it can be a gift to a person, whose time you want to waste.
There was one beautiful thought in the book though. ‘When one man kills another, is God on the side of the killer or is God actually the victim? By allowing a man to kill another, is God inspiring a reflection and remorse to elevate the living soul to eventual greatness? The alternate choice God has is to kill everyone. But by becoming a victim and letting man reflect on his own nature and choosing love out of freewill, isn’t he creating a better world?’
Ya, when I read that, I was like !! From this book, I learnt that literally anything can be defended by anyone. Even horrific killings of a community, death of children, abuse on women, and above all, the thought that God is above any scrutiny or accountability. And hence, anything done in his name can be overlooked. Such a logic was also written in a force fitted way in the book.
For that one above perspective or learning, I give it the extra star. Else, you would have had better conversations with friends who truly felt the pain of suffering in life.
April 1, 2011
If man is made in God's image (or vice versa) then to put God on trial is to indict Man. Wiesel's powerful drama invites reflection on mankind's inability to live up to God, or to fashion gods that are truly worthy. Most damning of all, no person is found to stand as God's advocate at the trial, except for Satan himself.
Powerful and provocative.
Powerful and provocative.
March 9, 2021
Many times after the Syrian revolution I held such a trial in mind...but with different outcomes.
March 15, 2024
4***
Very poignant, highly thought-provoking play written by the Auschwitz celebrated concentration camp survivor who wrote his must-read NIGHT memoir recounting his experiences while prisoner in the camps. This play, however, captures one night in the barracks when he was 15-years old and witnessed three frustrated men who question where God is in all their suffering. Does He care? Why does He do nothing about it? What is the point of all their suffering? Isn’t God immoral for standing by, watching them without intervening? And so, they literally put God on trial and convict Him as intimately responsible for their torturous plight at the hands of the Germans. This play is very reminiscent of Job’s story where so many horrific things happen, and yet He chooses not to hold God accountable for his misfortunes.
The Auschwitz barracks scene had such an impact on Wiesel that he chose to set his play within a fictitious setting in a 17th century pogrom, and the cast of characters both love and hate God again for His inaction to their village being wiped out by the Russians. During the feast of Purim when Jews celebrate their victory over Roman oppression, the three minstrels of The Trial cast the prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, with a surprise cast for Sqtan.
Quite a fascinating story, and one that very few people would ever had the courage to ponder, much less write. Wiesel, though, is the voice of their generation and asks the deep, dark questions that likely every Jewish person harbored in their heart but were afraid to ask for risk of offending their culture and faith. If anything, this speaks much to the purpose of suffering, whom do you say that God is, and how do you rectify God as all-powerful and all-loving with the atrocities within the camps.
Very poignant, highly thought-provoking play written by the Auschwitz celebrated concentration camp survivor who wrote his must-read NIGHT memoir recounting his experiences while prisoner in the camps. This play, however, captures one night in the barracks when he was 15-years old and witnessed three frustrated men who question where God is in all their suffering. Does He care? Why does He do nothing about it? What is the point of all their suffering? Isn’t God immoral for standing by, watching them without intervening? And so, they literally put God on trial and convict Him as intimately responsible for their torturous plight at the hands of the Germans. This play is very reminiscent of Job’s story where so many horrific things happen, and yet He chooses not to hold God accountable for his misfortunes.
The Auschwitz barracks scene had such an impact on Wiesel that he chose to set his play within a fictitious setting in a 17th century pogrom, and the cast of characters both love and hate God again for His inaction to their village being wiped out by the Russians. During the feast of Purim when Jews celebrate their victory over Roman oppression, the three minstrels of The Trial cast the prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge, with a surprise cast for Sqtan.
Quite a fascinating story, and one that very few people would ever had the courage to ponder, much less write. Wiesel, though, is the voice of their generation and asks the deep, dark questions that likely every Jewish person harbored in their heart but were afraid to ask for risk of offending their culture and faith. If anything, this speaks much to the purpose of suffering, whom do you say that God is, and how do you rectify God as all-powerful and all-loving with the atrocities within the camps.
Read
September 23, 2023oofta
November 1, 2012
This book is a complex play, surveying many of the theological arguments questioning God's existence in the face of catastrophic human suffering - set in 1649, it describes a Purim play occurring in a Jewish community recently decimated by a pogrom, although it is loosely based on real-life events which happened in the concentration camps. I got an enormous amount out of this, and found it much more readable than most of his other works (with the exception, possibly, of the iconic 'Night'). A must-read if you're interested in how Jewish theology has struggled with suffering in the wake of the Holocaust.
June 1, 2022
This play is absolute genius
March 24, 2018
“La sua genesi: nel regno della notte avevo assistito a un processo veramente strano. Tre rabbini eruditi e pii avevano deciso una sera d’inverno di giudicare Dio del massacro dei suoi figli. Mi ricordo: io ero lì e avevo voglia di piangere. Ma nessuno piangeva.
Allora…”
Chiamare Dio alla sbarra per il male che accade è una tentazione di tutti (anche dei carnefici).
Un bambino, un ragazzo che ha vissuto l’orrore… e che ha avuto il suo Dio e la sua anima assassinati…
“Mai dimenticherò quella notte, la prima notte nel campo, che ha fatto della mia vita una lunga notte e per sette volte sprangata.
Mai dimenticherò quel fumo.
Mai dimenticherò i piccoli volti dei bambini di cui avevo visto i corpi trasformarsi in volute di fumo sotto un cielo muto.
Mai dimenticherò quelle fiamme che bruciarono per sempre la mia Fede.
Mai dimenticherò quel silenzio notturno che mi ha tolto per l'eternità il desiderio di vivere.
Mai dimenticherò quegli istanti che assassinarono il mio Dio e la mia anima, e i miei sogni, che presero il volto del deserto.
Mai dimenticherò tutto ciò, anche se fossi condannato a vivere quanto Dio stesso. Mai”. (Elie Wiesel, La Notte)
C’è un bassorilievo alla fine del percorso dello Yad Vashem di Gerusalemme, che raffigura il medico e pedagogista polacco Januz Korczak, morto a Treblinka nel 1942. Il volto triste, tristissimo, di un’amarezza senza fine che abbraccia i suoi figli morti, i bambini dell’orfanatrofio ebraico del Ghetto di Varsavia.
Ecco… Dio, per me, ha quel volto e quella mestizia, … e quell’abbraccio… e una tenerezza infinita…
Letto una prima volta nel 1986 (gli avrei dato 4 stelline, anche allora). Non so dire altro…
Allora…”
Chiamare Dio alla sbarra per il male che accade è una tentazione di tutti (anche dei carnefici).
Un bambino, un ragazzo che ha vissuto l’orrore… e che ha avuto il suo Dio e la sua anima assassinati…
“Mai dimenticherò quella notte, la prima notte nel campo, che ha fatto della mia vita una lunga notte e per sette volte sprangata.
Mai dimenticherò quel fumo.
Mai dimenticherò i piccoli volti dei bambini di cui avevo visto i corpi trasformarsi in volute di fumo sotto un cielo muto.
Mai dimenticherò quelle fiamme che bruciarono per sempre la mia Fede.
Mai dimenticherò quel silenzio notturno che mi ha tolto per l'eternità il desiderio di vivere.
Mai dimenticherò quegli istanti che assassinarono il mio Dio e la mia anima, e i miei sogni, che presero il volto del deserto.
Mai dimenticherò tutto ciò, anche se fossi condannato a vivere quanto Dio stesso. Mai”. (Elie Wiesel, La Notte)
C’è un bassorilievo alla fine del percorso dello Yad Vashem di Gerusalemme, che raffigura il medico e pedagogista polacco Januz Korczak, morto a Treblinka nel 1942. Il volto triste, tristissimo, di un’amarezza senza fine che abbraccia i suoi figli morti, i bambini dell’orfanatrofio ebraico del Ghetto di Varsavia.
Ecco… Dio, per me, ha quel volto e quella mestizia, … e quell’abbraccio… e una tenerezza infinita…
Letto una prima volta nel 1986 (gli avrei dato 4 stelline, anche allora). Non so dire altro…
September 10, 2010
I finished the play in just a few days because it moves so quickly, and want to read it again and again. It's a story that is profound but accessible and even hours after finishing it I can't seem to pick my jaw up off of the floor. Mind-blowing and awesome.
The Trial of God is a perfect vehicle for a subject beyond weighty, and it is an incredible way to honor and preserve the ideas shared by the Rabbis during the trials they held in concentration camps and ghettos for future generations.
The Trial of God is a perfect vehicle for a subject beyond weighty, and it is an incredible way to honor and preserve the ideas shared by the Rabbis during the trials they held in concentration camps and ghettos for future generations.
December 12, 2017
I feel that I am treading on holy ground when I approach the depth of suffering and horror that the Jewish people endured during the Holocaust, and that I have little right to express any thought on the matter at all; I would rather listen, listen to what they have to say and to teach us. The U.S. school system does a good job and introducing young students to the matter. I have read "Number the Stars" and "The Diary of Anne Frank," as well as a few others. I am glad that as a society, we are still engaging with it, still wrestling with it, and seeking out answers.
"The Trial of God" was written by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor. I put the book on my to-read list after encountering another book dealing with human suffering, "Re-Reading Job" by Michael Austin. "Trial" at its very center is the story of Job re-told in the context of the Holocaust and thet Jewish pogroms of the 12th and 13th centuries.
"The Trial" is very interesting, in that it is a story within a story. While Wiesel was in a concentration camp, some rabbis with whom he was acquainted held a mock trial of God. Wiesel wanted to write about this experience later, but it just wouldn't come out-- as a memoir, an essay, a reflection. Instead, he chose to write it as a play set in 13th century Poland. It's a story within a story.
The two characters that clash in the third act are Berish, the prosecutor of God who has witnessed the rape, pillage, and murder of his people at the hands of Christians; and Sam, the defender of God whom no one seems to no who he is, but they all feel that he looks vaguely familiar. Sam makes many of the arguments for God in the face of suffering that seem superficial and do not comfort; we do not know God's ways, we can't see the bigger picture, can we really compare ourselves to God's suffering or the suffering of others, etc. These are the arguments that Job's comforters make in the book of Job as well. There is a twist at the end though, but I can't spoil it for you. Sam is mysterious for a reason.
I am impressed with how much Wiesel is able to pack into these characters in so little time. The three minstrels, the Christian woman Marie, the outraged Berish, his suffering daughter Hannah, and the cold Sam. It is a book that asks the tough questions, and perhaps challenges your faith. It isn't godless; but Berish demands justice from God when justice doesn't seem to be present. Men of faith too ask why there is such suffering in the world. There is no simple answer, and we should avoid giving them, because rather than comforting, we cause affliction.
Quotes from the text:
That you are God’s whip, that is quite possible. But don’t be so proud of it. God is closer to the Just struck by the whip than to the whip. God may punish the Just whom He loves, but despise the instrument of punishment; He throws it in the garbage, whereas the Just will find his way to the sanctuary.
I lived as a Jew, and it is as a Jew that I shall die—and it is as a Jew that, with my last breath, I shall shout my protest to God. And because the end is near, I shall shout louder! Because the end is near, I’ll tell Him that He’s more guilty than ever!
So what? Must one be thirsty to drink? Do birds fly only when they have someplace to go? They fly because they love freedom and the blue sky. We drink the way they fly.
Love was invented as an excuse for everything that goes wrong. You beat up someone and you say, “But it’s because I love you.” You cheat someone and again you say, “But it’s because I love you.” You mention the word love and everything is forgiven. Well, I do not forgive!
Don’t talk to me of His suffering—leave that to the priest. If I am given the choice of feeling sorry for Him or for human beings, I choose the latter anytime. He is big enough, strong enough to take care of Himself; man is not.
“You are not even awed? You feel nothing?” Sam responds: “I dislike emotions. I prefer facts and cool logic.”
I don’t want a minor, secondary justice, a poor man’s justice! I want no part of a justice that escapes me, diminishes me and makes a mockery out of mine! Justice is here for men and women—I therefore want it to be human, or let Him keep it!… Why shouldn’t the victims of injustice take part in a debate over justice?
Commentary:
Consolation is no answer. It heightens the problem rather than resolving it. It may have a place within the Jewish tradition, but one cannot remain passive in the face of evil. So what shall we do? Rather than passivity, a dedicated aggressiveness is demanded. We are invited by another part of the Jewish tradition not to bury our concerns but to hold them up, to confront God with them, sometimes in anger. This is the manner of Jeremiah, who challenges God: “Why do the wicked prosper, and the treacherous all live at ease?”
We are permitted to question God, to challenge God, to demand an accounting from God. And this, rather than diminishing God is truly to take God seriously. As Wiesel has frequently remarked, “I do not have any answers, but I have some very good questions.”
Satan sounds oh so theologically correct and logical. He could get a job in most academic theological institutions today. Beware of theologians and excessive rationalizations, Wiesel is warning. Rightly so. For theology too easily strays into the lap of the left brain, too far from the guts where injustice as well as compassion are felt and where wonder and amazement are tasted.
Meister Eckhart, a mystic and prophetic figure of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century who supported oppressed peasants and women in his day, used to say, “I pray God to rid me of God.” In many ways that is what I heard echoed in this trial of God: it was a trial to finally rid ourselves of a God who is too small, who does not live up to the divine nature of compassion and justice, who has not penetrated the lives of his/her followers, who allows the Godself to be used for programs and pogroms of racism, injustice, genocide, hatred, murder, and ignorance. Religious fanatics are prophets with no love, prophets with no mystical soul. They are false prophets, therefore, and corrupters of true religion. While those who dissent are often the true prophets.
Wiesel, Elie. The Trial of God: (as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod) (pp. 172-173). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Maybe growing up religiously means moving from an exclusively interventionist theology of redemption to a coresponsibility theology of redemption. In the former we are taught to await salvation from the outside (much like the men in the play, who kept looking for Sam to deliver them right up to the end). Such a theology presumes a theistic world view; that is, that the God of creation and liberation is outside of things. In a coresponsibility theology of redemption God is not seen theistically or outside of things but panentheistically or within things and with things within God. Redemption in this context would be less about outside interventions than about humans waking up to their own responsibility and power as communities, as individuals, and as a species, to stand up and say “No!”
We humans are still incredulous when we hear how much responsibility we bear for our own fate and that of others. Is it God we don’t believe in, or ourselves as images of God? If we believed in the latter, our ways would have to change.
"The Trial of God" was written by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor. I put the book on my to-read list after encountering another book dealing with human suffering, "Re-Reading Job" by Michael Austin. "Trial" at its very center is the story of Job re-told in the context of the Holocaust and thet Jewish pogroms of the 12th and 13th centuries.
"The Trial" is very interesting, in that it is a story within a story. While Wiesel was in a concentration camp, some rabbis with whom he was acquainted held a mock trial of God. Wiesel wanted to write about this experience later, but it just wouldn't come out-- as a memoir, an essay, a reflection. Instead, he chose to write it as a play set in 13th century Poland. It's a story within a story.
The two characters that clash in the third act are Berish, the prosecutor of God who has witnessed the rape, pillage, and murder of his people at the hands of Christians; and Sam, the defender of God whom no one seems to no who he is, but they all feel that he looks vaguely familiar. Sam makes many of the arguments for God in the face of suffering that seem superficial and do not comfort; we do not know God's ways, we can't see the bigger picture, can we really compare ourselves to God's suffering or the suffering of others, etc. These are the arguments that Job's comforters make in the book of Job as well. There is a twist at the end though, but I can't spoil it for you. Sam is mysterious for a reason.
I am impressed with how much Wiesel is able to pack into these characters in so little time. The three minstrels, the Christian woman Marie, the outraged Berish, his suffering daughter Hannah, and the cold Sam. It is a book that asks the tough questions, and perhaps challenges your faith. It isn't godless; but Berish demands justice from God when justice doesn't seem to be present. Men of faith too ask why there is such suffering in the world. There is no simple answer, and we should avoid giving them, because rather than comforting, we cause affliction.
Quotes from the text:
That you are God’s whip, that is quite possible. But don’t be so proud of it. God is closer to the Just struck by the whip than to the whip. God may punish the Just whom He loves, but despise the instrument of punishment; He throws it in the garbage, whereas the Just will find his way to the sanctuary.
I lived as a Jew, and it is as a Jew that I shall die—and it is as a Jew that, with my last breath, I shall shout my protest to God. And because the end is near, I shall shout louder! Because the end is near, I’ll tell Him that He’s more guilty than ever!
So what? Must one be thirsty to drink? Do birds fly only when they have someplace to go? They fly because they love freedom and the blue sky. We drink the way they fly.
Love was invented as an excuse for everything that goes wrong. You beat up someone and you say, “But it’s because I love you.” You cheat someone and again you say, “But it’s because I love you.” You mention the word love and everything is forgiven. Well, I do not forgive!
Don’t talk to me of His suffering—leave that to the priest. If I am given the choice of feeling sorry for Him or for human beings, I choose the latter anytime. He is big enough, strong enough to take care of Himself; man is not.
“You are not even awed? You feel nothing?” Sam responds: “I dislike emotions. I prefer facts and cool logic.”
I don’t want a minor, secondary justice, a poor man’s justice! I want no part of a justice that escapes me, diminishes me and makes a mockery out of mine! Justice is here for men and women—I therefore want it to be human, or let Him keep it!… Why shouldn’t the victims of injustice take part in a debate over justice?
Commentary:
Consolation is no answer. It heightens the problem rather than resolving it. It may have a place within the Jewish tradition, but one cannot remain passive in the face of evil. So what shall we do? Rather than passivity, a dedicated aggressiveness is demanded. We are invited by another part of the Jewish tradition not to bury our concerns but to hold them up, to confront God with them, sometimes in anger. This is the manner of Jeremiah, who challenges God: “Why do the wicked prosper, and the treacherous all live at ease?”
We are permitted to question God, to challenge God, to demand an accounting from God. And this, rather than diminishing God is truly to take God seriously. As Wiesel has frequently remarked, “I do not have any answers, but I have some very good questions.”
Satan sounds oh so theologically correct and logical. He could get a job in most academic theological institutions today. Beware of theologians and excessive rationalizations, Wiesel is warning. Rightly so. For theology too easily strays into the lap of the left brain, too far from the guts where injustice as well as compassion are felt and where wonder and amazement are tasted.
Meister Eckhart, a mystic and prophetic figure of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century who supported oppressed peasants and women in his day, used to say, “I pray God to rid me of God.” In many ways that is what I heard echoed in this trial of God: it was a trial to finally rid ourselves of a God who is too small, who does not live up to the divine nature of compassion and justice, who has not penetrated the lives of his/her followers, who allows the Godself to be used for programs and pogroms of racism, injustice, genocide, hatred, murder, and ignorance. Religious fanatics are prophets with no love, prophets with no mystical soul. They are false prophets, therefore, and corrupters of true religion. While those who dissent are often the true prophets.
Wiesel, Elie. The Trial of God: (as it was held on February 25, 1649, in Shamgorod) (pp. 172-173). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Maybe growing up religiously means moving from an exclusively interventionist theology of redemption to a coresponsibility theology of redemption. In the former we are taught to await salvation from the outside (much like the men in the play, who kept looking for Sam to deliver them right up to the end). Such a theology presumes a theistic world view; that is, that the God of creation and liberation is outside of things. In a coresponsibility theology of redemption God is not seen theistically or outside of things but panentheistically or within things and with things within God. Redemption in this context would be less about outside interventions than about humans waking up to their own responsibility and power as communities, as individuals, and as a species, to stand up and say “No!”
We humans are still incredulous when we hear how much responsibility we bear for our own fate and that of others. Is it God we don’t believe in, or ourselves as images of God? If we believed in the latter, our ways would have to change.
August 17, 2017
This is a play of Jewish people putting God on trial in 1649 for refusing to do anything while his people are killed. While preparing the trial, they struggle to find a prosecutor for God. At the end of Act 2, a “stranger” shows up and volunteers to defend God. At the beginning of Act 3, we learn that the “stranger's name is Sam. And at the very end, we learn who Sam actually is and what he spends his time doing when he isn’t defending God.
For the duration of the trial, they debate over the possibility of death being good, and the fine difference between death and suffering. Someone decides that God either doesn’t care or is in someway ignoring them, and therefore, either way, God is guilty. On a slight digression, away from the specific contents of this book, I am reminded of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, in which a man named Ivan decides to reject God for allowing evil. He even decides that “he is returning his ticket to heaven.” He wouldn’t want to spend an eternity with someone who allows the suffering and dieing of children. Thanks Crash Course Philosophy (specifically episode 13): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNE...
Anyway, it’s definitely helpful to keep in mind that this is a play, and not a novel while you’re reading. There is certainly more dialogue and less description.
I am not a frequent reader of plays, but I enjoyed this.
For the duration of the trial, they debate over the possibility of death being good, and the fine difference between death and suffering. Someone decides that God either doesn’t care or is in someway ignoring them, and therefore, either way, God is guilty. On a slight digression, away from the specific contents of this book, I am reminded of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, in which a man named Ivan decides to reject God for allowing evil. He even decides that “he is returning his ticket to heaven.” He wouldn’t want to spend an eternity with someone who allows the suffering and dieing of children. Thanks Crash Course Philosophy (specifically episode 13): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNE...
Anyway, it’s definitely helpful to keep in mind that this is a play, and not a novel while you’re reading. There is certainly more dialogue and less description.
I am not a frequent reader of plays, but I enjoyed this.
March 10, 2019
This is a fast read and like many books of its sort, I feel I could read over and over and each time gain more insight into the author's purpose. Set in Shamgorod in the 17th Century, the play is set after a series of pogroms that have devastated Jewish villages leaving only a handful of survivors. God is put on trial for allowing the horrors inflicted upon the people to happen.
As a boy in Auschwitz, Wiesel witnessed a similar occurrence carried out by some rabbis which haunted him his entire life. The trial takes places in the inn where the inn keeper and his daughter reside having been the sole survivors of the pogrom carried out in their village. Berish carries the psychological wounds of the atrocities that occurred including the murders of his wife and children, other than his daughter Hanna who was subjected to gang rape and humiliation on the eve of her wedding. Her father had been forced to watch and was now holding God to account for what has happened. Visitors, most of whom have also witnessed pogroms, arrive at the inn where a decision is taken to hold a trial.
What surprised me most about the play was that after all they had suffered, none of the characters had lost their faith. They all maintained their belief in God, but could not come to terms with what he had allowed.
Like the other books by the author, his compassion and empathy for the suffering of other people is apparent. They say that writing can be cathartic and in the case of Wiesel at least, one can't help but agree. This is a thoughtful, worthwhile book.
As a boy in Auschwitz, Wiesel witnessed a similar occurrence carried out by some rabbis which haunted him his entire life. The trial takes places in the inn where the inn keeper and his daughter reside having been the sole survivors of the pogrom carried out in their village. Berish carries the psychological wounds of the atrocities that occurred including the murders of his wife and children, other than his daughter Hanna who was subjected to gang rape and humiliation on the eve of her wedding. Her father had been forced to watch and was now holding God to account for what has happened. Visitors, most of whom have also witnessed pogroms, arrive at the inn where a decision is taken to hold a trial.
What surprised me most about the play was that after all they had suffered, none of the characters had lost their faith. They all maintained their belief in God, but could not come to terms with what he had allowed.
Like the other books by the author, his compassion and empathy for the suffering of other people is apparent. They say that writing can be cathartic and in the case of Wiesel at least, one can't help but agree. This is a thoughtful, worthwhile book.
September 1, 2020
I wrote a paper on this book my freshman year of college, and then I decided to major in religion. This book deeply challenged me.
February 2, 2020
This play is a testament to the depth and complexity of Elie Weisel. I liked two particular elements of the story, the historical and the theological. The author, a survivor of the Holocaust, analyzes Jewish tragic history as a continuum by placing the Trial of God (itself a result of feelings of abandonment) after a Medieval Pogrom instead of in Auschwitz, where it actually happened. Secondly, the characters examine the figure of God in his humanity, channeling the Bible on the “image and likeness” (therefore being unclear if they’re judging humanity or if they’re judging God). Lastly, the philosophical aspect is also interesting: A plot where Satan can provide logical arguments and show compassion sends a message that even the darkest have a human (and therefore godly) side to them.
July 5, 2024
A complex, thought-provoking and haunting play that, rather than providing any definite answers, raises many interesting questions.
December 30, 2024
absolutely profound in every way. would give it 6 stars if i could
August 9, 2020
I reckon it might be better to watch than to read but it is not a very pleasant little play.
September 17, 2022
مسرحية "محاكمة الرب" هي مسرحية تراجيدية تناقش "معضلة الشر" وهي معضلة تركز على التناقض الرهيب بين الله الرحيم ووجود الشر في العالم،تأتي هذه المسرحية بمثابة صرخة مدوية في وجه الله،لماذا؟!،لماذا تُسفك الدماء؟!،لماذا تحدث المجازر؟!،لمَ كل هذه المعاناة؟!
كاتب المسرحية "إيلي ويزل" هو ناشط حقوقي يهودي مدافع عن حقوق الإنسان،وناجٍ من المحرقة النازية "الهولوكوست".
فقد ويزل أباه وأمه وأخته الصغيرة في المحرقة،وربما كان هذا أحد أسباب شعوره بالغضب الذي دفعه لكتابة هذه المسرحية.
المسرحية تتحدث عن صاحب حانة يهودي يدعى "بيريش" فقد زوجته وولديه في مجزرة ضد اليهود.
يأتي إلى الحانة ثلاثة منشدين في عيد البوريم لإقامة مسرحية،يطلب بيريش منهم أن تكون المسرحية "محاكمة الله"
المدعي العام ضد الله هو "بيريش"صاحب الحانة؛وهو رجل غاضبٌ لما أصابه وأصاب عائلته.
محامي الدفاع عن الله هو "سام" وهو شخصية خبيثة تخدع كل الشخصيات الأخرى.
المشهد الأهم من المسرحية هو مشهد الجدال بين "بيريش" و "سام" ولنقتبس بعضًا من العبارات:
في خطاب "بيريش" نرى غضبًا وحزنًا لا يستطيع القارئ إلا التفاعل معه:
-"أنا_المدعو بيريش،صاحب نزل يهودي في شامغورود_أتهم الله بالعدوانية والقسوة واللامبالاة. إما أنه يمقت شعبه المختار أو أنه لا يبالي لهم-نقطة انتهى!ولكن عندها-لماذا اختارنا-لماذا لم يختر أحدًا آخر،على سبيل التغيير؟إما أنه يعرف ما الذي يحدث لنا،أو أنه لا يريد أن يعرف! في كلتا الحالتين،إنه...إنه...مذنب(يتوقف،ثم يصرخ بأعلى صوته)نعم،مذنب!"
-"أيمكن أن يقف أي أبٍ جانبًا،بصمتٍ وهدوء،ويشاهد أولاده يُقْتلون؟"
-"إذا أرادني الله أن أكون غبارًا،لمَ لَمْ يتركني على تلك الحالة؟لكنني لستُ غبارًا. أنا أقف،أنا أسير،أفكر،أتساءل،أصرخ:أنا إنسان!"
-"سأولول بكلماتٍ ظلت تنفجر في داخلي ومن خلالي! سأمزِّق جميع أقنعته التي يخفي وجهه خلفها!"
-"لكنني لن أقول آمين. فليسحقني، ليمحقني،لن أصلي له.
ليقتلني،ليقتلنا جميعًا،وسأصرخ،سأصرخ عاليًا بأن ذلك خطؤه هو.سأستغل آخر ذرة من طاقتي لأعلن احتجاجي.سواء متُّ أو عشت،لن أخضع له بعد اليوم"
أما في خطاب "سام" نرى نفس الحجج الضعيفة التي اعتدنا على سماعها؛حجج على غرار "هذه مشيئة الله" و "من أنت لتحاكم الله" و "هذه أعمال البشر ليس الله"
وكل هذه الحجج تقوم على مبدأ تحقير الإنسان أمام الله،ومسح الكرامة البشرية من الوجود.
لنقبتس بعضًا من خطاب سام:
-"لابد لي أن أختار جانبه.أنا خادمه.لقد خلق العالم وخلقني بدون أن يأخذ رأيي،ويمكنه أن يفعل بكلينا ما يشاء.وظيفتنا تتلخص في تمجيده،والتسبيح بحمده،ومحبته_رغمًا عنا"
-"ما الذي تعرفه عن الرب يدفعك لرفضه وإنكاره والجحود به؟ أنت تدير ظهركَ له_ثم تتهمه! لماذا؟ ألانك شهدتَ مجزرة؟ فكر بأسلافنا،الذين ناحوا وبكوا_على مر القرون على مقتل أحبائهم وهدم بيوتهم_ومع ذلك كرروا مرارًا وتكرارًا أن طرق الرب وأساليبه عادلة رغم ذلك.هل نحن أفضل مما كانوا؟ هل نحن أحكم؟ أنقى؟"
-"يبدو لي الموقف في منتهى البساطة،رجال ونساء وأطفال قد ذُبِحوا وقُتِلوا على أيدي رجالٍ آخرين.لماذا نورّط أباهم الذي في السموات؟ما دَخله؟
والآن نتطرق إلى السؤال الأهم:
هل هذه المسرحية تدعو للكفر بالله؟
يمكننا أخذها كذلك بناءً على معضلة الشر.
وهذا يستدعي اقتباس مشهور للفيلسوف الألماني "فريدريك نيتشه": عذر الله الوحيد هو ألا يكون موجودًا.
إلا أن الكاتب بحد ذاته ليسَ ملحدًا.
وربما كان الغضب في وجه الله وسيلة لتأكيد وجوده؛وإلّا على من كان بيريش سيغضب؟
الجميل في المسرحية على العموم هو رفع الكرامة الإنسانية ومحبة الإنسان لأخيه الإنسان فوق الهيبة الإلهية؛وكأن الكاتب يريد القول:وإنْ كنتَ الله!،لماذا تفعل هذا؟!!!
في النهاية إنها مسرحية جميلة أوصي بقراءتها
كاتب المسرحية "إيلي ويزل" هو ناشط حقوقي يهودي مدافع عن حقوق الإنسان،وناجٍ من المحرقة النازية "الهولوكوست".
فقد ويزل أباه وأمه وأخته الصغيرة في المحرقة،وربما كان هذا أحد أسباب شعوره بالغضب الذي دفعه لكتابة هذه المسرحية.
المسرحية تتحدث عن صاحب حانة يهودي يدعى "بيريش" فقد زوجته وولديه في مجزرة ضد اليهود.
يأتي إلى الحانة ثلاثة منشدين في عيد البوريم لإقامة مسرحية،يطلب بيريش منهم أن تكون المسرحية "محاكمة الله"
المدعي العام ضد الله هو "بيريش"صاحب الحانة؛وهو رجل غاضبٌ لما أصابه وأصاب عائلته.
محامي الدفاع عن الله هو "سام" وهو شخصية خبيثة تخدع كل الشخصيات الأخرى.
المشهد الأهم من المسرحية هو مشهد الجدال بين "بيريش" و "سام" ولنقتبس بعضًا من العبارات:
في خطاب "بيريش" نرى غضبًا وحزنًا لا يستطيع القارئ إلا التفاعل معه:
-"أنا_المدعو بيريش،صاحب نزل يهودي في شامغورود_أتهم الله بالعدوانية والقسوة واللامبالاة. إما أنه يمقت شعبه المختار أو أنه لا يبالي لهم-نقطة انتهى!ولكن عندها-لماذا اختارنا-لماذا لم يختر أحدًا آخر،على سبيل التغيير؟إما أنه يعرف ما الذي يحدث لنا،أو أنه لا يريد أن يعرف! في كلتا الحالتين،إنه...إنه...مذنب(يتوقف،ثم يصرخ بأعلى صوته)نعم،مذنب!"
-"أيمكن أن يقف أي أبٍ جانبًا،بصمتٍ وهدوء،ويشاهد أولاده يُقْتلون؟"
-"إذا أرادني الله أن أكون غبارًا،لمَ لَمْ يتركني على تلك الحالة؟لكنني لستُ غبارًا. أنا أقف،أنا أسير،أفكر،أتساءل،أصرخ:أنا إنسان!"
-"سأولول بكلماتٍ ظلت تنفجر في داخلي ومن خلالي! سأمزِّق جميع أقنعته التي يخفي وجهه خلفها!"
-"لكنني لن أقول آمين. فليسحقني، ليمحقني،لن أصلي له.
ليقتلني،ليقتلنا جميعًا،وسأصرخ،سأصرخ عاليًا بأن ذلك خطؤه هو.سأستغل آخر ذرة من طاقتي لأعلن احتجاجي.سواء متُّ أو عشت،لن أخضع له بعد اليوم"
أما في خطاب "سام" نرى نفس الحجج الضعيفة التي اعتدنا على سماعها؛حجج على غرار "هذه مشيئة الله" و "من أنت لتحاكم الله" و "هذه أعمال البشر ليس الله"
وكل هذه الحجج تقوم على مبدأ تحقير الإنسان أمام الله،ومسح الكرامة البشرية من الوجود.
لنقبتس بعضًا من خطاب سام:
-"لابد لي أن أختار جانبه.أنا خادمه.لقد خلق العالم وخلقني بدون أن يأخذ رأيي،ويمكنه أن يفعل بكلينا ما يشاء.وظيفتنا تتلخص في تمجيده،والتسبيح بحمده،ومحبته_رغمًا عنا"
-"ما الذي تعرفه عن الرب يدفعك لرفضه وإنكاره والجحود به؟ أنت تدير ظهركَ له_ثم تتهمه! لماذا؟ ألانك شهدتَ مجزرة؟ فكر بأسلافنا،الذين ناحوا وبكوا_على مر القرون على مقتل أحبائهم وهدم بيوتهم_ومع ذلك كرروا مرارًا وتكرارًا أن طرق الرب وأساليبه عادلة رغم ذلك.هل نحن أفضل مما كانوا؟ هل نحن أحكم؟ أنقى؟"
-"يبدو لي الموقف في منتهى البساطة،رجال ونساء وأطفال قد ذُبِحوا وقُتِلوا على أيدي رجالٍ آخرين.لماذا نورّط أباهم الذي في السموات؟ما دَخله؟
والآن نتطرق إلى السؤال الأهم:
هل هذه المسرحية تدعو للكفر بالله؟
يمكننا أخذها كذلك بناءً على معضلة الشر.
وهذا يستدعي اقتباس مشهور للفيلسوف الألماني "فريدريك نيتشه": عذر الله الوحيد هو ألا يكون موجودًا.
إلا أن الكاتب بحد ذاته ليسَ ملحدًا.
وربما كان الغضب في وجه الله وسيلة لتأكيد وجوده؛وإلّا على من كان بيريش سيغضب؟
الجميل في المسرحية على العموم هو رفع الكرامة الإنسانية ومحبة الإنسان لأخيه الإنسان فوق الهيبة الإلهية؛وكأن الكاتب يريد القول:وإنْ كنتَ الله!،لماذا تفعل هذا؟!!!
في النهاية إنها مسرحية جميلة أوصي بقراءتها
February 17, 2015
due ideuzze buttate lì alla bell'e meglio:
è bello, però... però... non so... mi aspettavo molto di più da un processo nientepopodimeno che a dio. cioè forse me lo aspettavo più nelle mie corde, vale a dire più blasfemo e dissacrante di quanto non sia.
nel leggere ero ansiosa di assistere a questo processo che però non arrivava mai. un'attesa fin troppo lunga, un divagare continuo, come se si cercasse di allontanare il "momento della verità", tanti fatti e discorsi che portano continuamente altrove, quasi a tergiversare. questa lunga attesa, mi sembra come se rappresentasse il timore dell'autore di portare a compimento ciò che aveva cominciato a scrivere, uno stizzo di rabbia gli aveva dato l'idea di quest'opera, ma poi nello scrivere, era come se qualcosa gli impedisse di continuare, una sorta di paura, o forse una sorta di rispetto (appunto) "religioso" nei confronti di quel chi/(o cosa) lo aveva sì ferito, ma che non aveva "superato" psicologicamente. Alla fine non può tergiversare altro e quindi finalmente il processo arriva, ma ormai l'intensità emotiva è smorzata, la rabbia è svanita e le accuse risultano mitigate.
a me sembra che l'autore si riconosca molto nel taverniere, e le esitazioni del taverniere (ben nascoste, ma sempre esitazioni mi pare che siano) sono le esitazioni dello stesso autore ad affrontare questo "gravoso compito".
l'opera nonostante la rabbia verso un dio assente, è comunque permeata da un profondo senso religioso, proprio come noi odieremmo un amante prima adorato che però ci ha fatto soffrire, ma è pur sempre chiaro che questo odio non è altro che profondo amore non (ancora???) finito...
ecco, questo non mi è piaciuto. il fatto che nonostante tutto si senta ancora l'amore verso dio, io invece mi aspettavo che si arrivasse alla vera liberazione, alla catarsi dalla religiosità...
è bello, però... però... non so... mi aspettavo molto di più da un processo nientepopodimeno che a dio. cioè forse me lo aspettavo più nelle mie corde, vale a dire più blasfemo e dissacrante di quanto non sia.
nel leggere ero ansiosa di assistere a questo processo che però non arrivava mai. un'attesa fin troppo lunga, un divagare continuo, come se si cercasse di allontanare il "momento della verità", tanti fatti e discorsi che portano continuamente altrove, quasi a tergiversare. questa lunga attesa, mi sembra come se rappresentasse il timore dell'autore di portare a compimento ciò che aveva cominciato a scrivere, uno stizzo di rabbia gli aveva dato l'idea di quest'opera, ma poi nello scrivere, era come se qualcosa gli impedisse di continuare, una sorta di paura, o forse una sorta di rispetto (appunto) "religioso" nei confronti di quel chi/(o cosa) lo aveva sì ferito, ma che non aveva "superato" psicologicamente. Alla fine non può tergiversare altro e quindi finalmente il processo arriva, ma ormai l'intensità emotiva è smorzata, la rabbia è svanita e le accuse risultano mitigate.
a me sembra che l'autore si riconosca molto nel taverniere, e le esitazioni del taverniere (ben nascoste, ma sempre esitazioni mi pare che siano) sono le esitazioni dello stesso autore ad affrontare questo "gravoso compito".
l'opera nonostante la rabbia verso un dio assente, è comunque permeata da un profondo senso religioso, proprio come noi odieremmo un amante prima adorato che però ci ha fatto soffrire, ma è pur sempre chiaro che questo odio non è altro che profondo amore non (ancora???) finito...
ecco, questo non mi è piaciuto. il fatto che nonostante tutto si senta ancora l'amore verso dio, io invece mi aspettavo che si arrivasse alla vera liberazione, alla catarsi dalla religiosità...
December 5, 2021
Valuable, though unfortunately disappointing. The concept--and the supposedly real-life scenario it is based off of, in which several rabbi in Auschwitz held a trial finding God "guilty"--is extremely philosophically potent--arguably an essential means of framing the horrors of the Holocaust and giving a a detailed and incomprehensible structure to the extremes of what we call evil. Most of the play unfortunately is more tragicomic small talk than a trial proper. While there is some powerful exploration here of the difficulty of making sense of religion in a world of atrocity, there is no rigorous examination of the items that could easily be used to render a "guilty" verdict--items that pose a serious, and potentially logically unanswerable challenge to any religious explanation of how atrocities like the Holocaust can fit into a worldview which relies on the "benevolence" of God. Elie Wiesel, as a survivor, has an essential voice in helping us to understand the Holocaust. It is unfortunate that he did not use the opportunity to give voice to the philosophical arguments surrounding modern evil and--in the tradition of Dostoevsky's goal in The Brothers Karamazov--to craft the best argument in favor of the "opposition" in order to disprove it.
December 4, 2007
After finishing Jonathan Ames' book
Wake Up Sir
I wanted to read something very different from the current novel style in vogue. I was scanning my bookshelf and came across this, a play, by Elie Wiesel. I recalled a friend of mine telling me he really liked it, and it gave him a few things to think about. I picked it up and finished it in just one shift at my coffeeshop, as I set it down, finished, a different friend of mine noticed it for the first time even though we were reading at the same table for the past few hours. "God, you are fucking morbid, you know that?"
"What?" I asked, to my knowledge, I hadn't done anything morbid in ages.
"Wiesel? Today?"
"Why not today?"
"Today is the start of fucking Hanukkah, asshole."
Apologies to all of my friends who were somehow offended by that.
"What?" I asked, to my knowledge, I hadn't done anything morbid in ages.
"Wiesel? Today?"
"Why not today?"
"Today is the start of fucking Hanukkah, asshole."
Apologies to all of my friends who were somehow offended by that.
October 10, 2017
"SAM Cosa sapete di Dio per parlarne con tanta sicurezza, e anche arroganza? […] Chi siete voi per fare confronti, per trarre conclusioni? Chi siete dunque per volere incolpare, o perfino interrogare, il Creatore dell’universo? Nato dalla polvere, non siete che polvere.
BERISH Se mi voleva polvere, doveva lasciarmi polvere. Ma io non sono polvere. Io sto in piedi. Cammino. Rifletto. Sogno. Mi arrabbio. Grido: sono un essere umano, perbacco!" (p. 88)
BERISH Se mi voleva polvere, doveva lasciarmi polvere. Ma io non sono polvere. Io sto in piedi. Cammino. Rifletto. Sogno. Mi arrabbio. Grido: sono un essere umano, perbacco!" (p. 88)
September 10, 2019
A whole lot of talk about interpersonal relationships, told in an anachronistic form. Almost no talk about God. And since there’s no way that 17th century Jewish peasants spoke in these ways, it becomes clear that Wiesel really wanted to write a book about the trial he witnessed in the holocaust. The BBC did a TV movie based on one line in the foreword of this play, and it was far more interesting.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 150 reviews