Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Yesaya 29:16

Schon in der Wurzel יצר liegt ja durchaus nichts Zwingendes, sondern Bildendes. Allein die Form יֵצֶר ist ja gar nicht aktiv, sondern passiv, es heißt ja nicht das Bildende, sondern das Gebildete, und wollte man יצר mit: treiben übersetzen, so wäre es ja nicht: was den Menschen treibt, sondern: was der Mensch treibt! יֵצֶר steht ja offenbar dem יוצֵר wie das Geschöpf dem Schöpfer, das Werk dem Bildner gegenüber: ויֵצֶר אמר ליוֹצְרו (Jes. 29, 16). יֵצֶר ist somit wie Stoff, כחמר ביד היוצר. dem יֵצֶר untergeordnet, und יֵצֶר מחשבות; ist: das Gebilde unserer Gedanken.

חַנַּנִי GOD HATH FAVOURED ME — The first נ has a Dagesh, because it serves the purpose of two נ’s since it should have said חַנְנַנִי as we always find the forms of חנן with two נ’s. The third נ here (Rashi means the third that is pronounced) serves as part of the accusative pronominal suffix (meaning “me”), as (Isaiah 29:16) עשני "He made me”, and as (30:20) זבדני “he endowed me”.

Zophar also addresses this issue in the framework of his thesis that our knowledge is not real knowledge. This being so, he argues that a fortiori it is impossible for us to know anything about God's Knowledge. His views accord with those expressed by Maimonides in his solution to this matter (Guide III. 20, 21), namely, that the word 'knowledge' when applied to God, may He be Blessed, and to us, is a homonym, and we can no more comprehend His Knowledge than we can His Essence.²³Maimonides wrote:
The homonymity of the term 'knowledge' misled people;...the words are the same but the things designated by them are different; and therefore they came to the absurd conclusion that that which is required for our knowledge is also required for God's knowledge. (Guide to the Perplexed, III:20)
The knowledge by which God governs is beyond human comprehension, God's knowledge being of His essence and not an attribute ascribed to Him. New human knowledge has no effect on God's knowledge - they are different entities. Just how they differ is not explained by Maimonides, but in his commentary to Isaiah 29:16 Malbim explains the difference between them in quasi-Kantian terms. Kant had postulated that time and space are an integral part of the mechanism of human consciousness, and that they have no independent existence. Man's knowledge exists in time and space. Malbim argued that God's knowledge is not a function of time and place and so it is inherently different from man's. (The introduction to the sixth oration)