ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף נחום 1:2

2. Said the Rabbi: All names of God, save the Tetragrammaton, are predicates and attributive descriptions, derived from the way His creatures are affected by His decrees and measures. He is called merciful, if he improves the condition of any man whom people pity for his sorry plight. They attribute to Him mercy and compassion, although this is, in our conception, surely nothing but a weakness of the soul and a quick movement of nature. This cannot be applied to God, who is a just Judge, ordaining the poverty of one individual and the wealth of another. His nature remains quite unaffected by it. He has no sympathy with one, nor anger against another. We see the same in human judges to whom questions are put. They decide according to law, making some people happy, and others miserable. He appears to us, as we observe His doings, sometimes a 'merciful and compassionate God,' (Exodus 34:6), sometimes 'a jealous and revengeful God' (Nahum 1:2), whilst He never changes from one attribute to the other. All attributes (excepting the Tetragrammaton) are divided into three classes, viz. creative, relative and negative. As regards the creative attributes, they are derived from acts emanating from Him by ways of natural medium, e.g. making poor and rich, exalting or casting down, 'merciful and compassionate,' 'jealous and revengeful,' 'strong and almighty,' and the like. As regards the relative attributes, viz. 'Blessed, praised, glorified, holy, exalted, and extolled,' they are borrowed from the reverence given to Him by mankind. However numerous these may be, they produce no plurality, as far as He is concerned, nor do they affect his Unity. As regards the negative attributes, such as 'Living, Only, First and Last,' they are given to Him in order to negative their contrasts, but not to establish them in the sense we understand them. For we cannot understand life except accompanied by sensibility and movement. God, however, is above them. We describe Him as living in order to negative the idea of the rigid and dead, since it would be an a priori conclusion that that which does not live is dead. This cannot, however, be applied to the intellect. One cannot, e.g. speak of time as being endowed with life, yet it does not follow that it is dead, since its nature has nothing to do with either life or death. In the same way one cannot call a stone ignorant, although we may say that it is not learned. Just as a stone is too low to be brought into connexion with learning or ignorance, thus the essence of God is too exalted to have anything to do with life or death, nor can the terms light or darkness be applied to it. If we were asked whether this essence is light or darkness, we should say light by way of metaphor, for fear one might conclude that that which is not light must be darkness. As a matter of fact we must say that only material bodies are subject to light and darkness, but the divine essence is no body, and can consequently only receive the attributes of light or darkness by way of simile, or in order to negative an attribute hinting at a deficiency. Life and death are, therefore, only applicable to material bodies, whilst the divine essence is as much exempt from both as it is highly extolled above them. The 'life' of which we speak in this connexion is not like ours, and this is what I wish to state, since 'we cannot think of any other kind of life but ours. It is as if one would say: We know not what it is. If we say 'living God' and 'God of life' (Psalms 106:28), it is but a relative expression placed in opposition to the gods of the Gentiles, which are 'dead gods' from which no action emanates. In the same way we take the term One, viz. to negative plurality, but not to establish unity as we understand it. For we call a thing one, when the component parts are coherent and of the same materials, e.g. one bone, one sinew, one water, one air. In a similar way time is compared to a compact body, and we speak of one day, and one year. The divine essence is exempt from complexity and divisibility, and 'one' only stands to exclude plurality. In the same way [we style Him] 'First' in order to exclude the notion of any later origin, but not to assert that He has a beginning; thus also 'Last' stands to repudiate the idea that His existence has no end, but not to fix a term for Him. All these attributes neither touch on the divine essence, nor do they lead us to assume a multiplicity. The attributes which are connected with the Tetragrammaton are those which describe His power of creating without any natural intermediaries, viz. Creator, Producer, Maker, 'To Him who alone doeth great wonders (Psalms 136:4),' which means that [He creates] by His bare intention and will, to the exclusion of any assisting cause. This is perhaps meant in the word of the Bible: 'And I appeared unto Abraham . . . as El Shaddāi' (Exodus 6:3), viz. in the way of power and dominion, as is said: 'He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, He reproved kings for their sake' (Psalms 105:14). He did not, however, perform any miracle for the patriarchs as He did for Moses, saying: 'but my name J H W H was I not known to them' (Exodus 6:2). This means by My name J H W H, since the bēth in beēl shaddāi refers to the former. The wonders done for Moses and the Israelites left no manner of doubt in their souls that the Creator of the world also created these things which He brought into existence immediately by His will, as the plagues of Egypt, the dividing of the Red Sea, the manna, the pillar of a cloud, and the like. The reason of this was not because they were higher than the Patriarchs, but because they were a multitude, and had nourished doubt in their souls, whilst the patriarchs had fostered the utmost faith and purity of mind. If they had all their lives been pursued by misfortune, their faith in God would not have suffered. Therefore they required no signs. We also style Him wise of heart, because He is the essence of intelligence, and intelligence itself; but this is no attribute. As to 'Almighty,' this belongs to the creative attributes.

And this idea itself was what was intended by Moses, of blessed memory, in the juxtaposition of this parshah with that preceding it. He says: "And now, O Israel, what does the L-rd your G-d ask of you…" That is, though you have sinned against and offended Him, He does not desire your destruction, and asks of you only that you fear Him. And all of the afflictions that He brought upon you in the desert were not intended as punishment, but only to bring you to this end. As the verse itself states (Ibid 8:5): "And know in your heart that just as a man chastens his son, so the L-rd your G-d chastens you…" The parallel is that the Holy One Blessed be He observes two principles of conduct in afflicting us, similar to those observed by a father in chastising his son. The first is that he never chastises him with a punishment fully commensurate with the severity of the sin. So that if his sin is a mortal one, he will not kill him, and if it is one that warrants beating, he will not beat him with the rod to the extent of his evil, but the punishment will always be less than the offense. The second is that the father's punishment is not intended as an end in itself, but as a corrective for his son, so that if the father sees that his son has repented of his conduct and will not revert to it, he will not punish him at all, but will rejoice in his heart that punishment is not necessary. G-d's chastisement of us, similarly, follows these two paths. First, He never punishes a man in proportion to the severity of his sin, as it is written (Psalms 103:9): "He has not dealt with us according to our sins, and has not requited us according to our transgression." And Ezra said (Ezra 9:13): "For You, our G-d, accorded us less than our sins, and granted us deliverance such as this." Second, G-d's punishment of men is not an end in itself but is intended as a corrective or as a defense against others' learning from their deeds. For punishment in itself is not commendable — if it were so, the Torah would not exhort us against it, as it is written (Leviticus 19:18): "Do not take revenge and do not bear a grudge against the children of your people." For the Torah does not interdict good acts but commands that they be done, and since revenge was interdicted, we can deduce that it is not commendable in itself. As to G-d's being described as (Nachum 1:2) "a jealous and vengeful G-d," he is not so described by virtue of His revenge in itself, but by virtue of the good that proceeds from it. This is the intent of our sages' dictum (Bereshith Rabbah 51:3) that nothing evil descends from Above. For it is inconceivable that categorical evil should stem from the Absolute Good and the source of all gods, but all that proceeds from Him must serve the end of good. Therefore, all of G-d's punishments in this world are of this orientation: either to correct the sinner himself, so that he repents of his evil way, or, if he does not accept such correction, to serve as warning to others not to emulate him.

You must know, that in examining the Law and the books of the Prophets, you will not find the expressions “burning anger,” “provocation,” or “jealousy” applied to God except in reference to idolatry; and that none but the idolater called “enemy,” “adversary,” or “hater of the Lord.” Comp. “And ye serve other gods, . . . and then the Lord’s wrath will be kindled against you” (Deut. 11:16, 17); “Lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee.” etc. (ib. 6:15); “To provoke him to anger through the work of your hands” (ib. 31:29); “They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities” (ib. 32:21); “For the Lord thy God is a jealous God” (ib. 6:15); “Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities?” (Jer. 8:19); “Because of the provoking of his sons and of his daughters” (Deut. 32:19); “For a fire is kindled in mine anger” (ib. 22); “The Lord will take vengeance on His adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies” (Nah. 1:2); “And repayeth them that hate Him” (Deut. 7:10); “Until He hath driven out His enemies from before Him” (Num. 32:2 1); “Which the Lord thy God hateth” (Deut. 16:22); “For every abomination to the Lord, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods” (ib. 12:31). Instances like these are innumerable; and if you examine all the examples met with in the holy writings, you will find that they confirm our view.