More about the Names of God
This essay explores the two names of God in the Torah, Elohim and YHWH, which represent different relationships between God and humanity. Elohim is the universal God who created the world, and is distant and transcendent, while YHWH is the immanent, personal God concerned with individual moral progress and Israel's destiny. This essay challenges the Documentary Hypothesis, which attributes the different names of God to distinct literary sources, supporting instead the idea that the names reflect varying attributes of God. Umberto Cassuto's rejection of the Documentary Hypothesis is highlighted, emphasizing his belief in divine authorship and the different ways God interacts with humanity. Ultimately, the two names express both the universal and personal aspects of God's relationship with the world, offering ancient people a revolutionary understanding of a singular, multifaceted deity.
You will love my latest book!
"The Struggle for Utopia - A History of Jewish, Christian and Islamic Messianism." Wonderful reviews. Available on Amazon, at US bookstores, and at Pomeranz Bookseller in Jerusalem (with courier service available).
​It was discussed in the previous webpage/chapter that there are two creation stories in the Torah, each of which is significantly different from the other. There are two distinct stories within the Noah account, in this instance intertwined between each other, although making up a single account. Within these two accounts are repetitions and slight contradictions. Two covenants are made with Abraham, the Covenant between the Pieces and the Covenant of Circumcision. Abraham and his wife are told separately that they will have a child in their old age. Moses also receives the Ten Commandments on two occasions.
​
These twosomes were noted by Christian biblical scholars, and were explained by the Documentary Hypothesis. Underlying this hypothesis is the notion that the Torah is an amalgam of different literary sources, each written with its own particular style and agenda.
​
The writing of Julius Wellhausen in the late 19th century is central to the development of biblical criticism. In his influential book "Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel" (1878) he brought together earlier scholarship and proposed that the Torah was composed in different periods from four main sources, termed J, E, D and P. These sources were later combined by editors or redactors into the Torah we know today. A summary of these sources is provided in the first reference.1
​
This hypothesis assumes that the redaction of the Pentateuch likely occurred during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile (586–539 BCE), and could have continued over an extended period. A need was felt at that time for consolidation of the various traditions and sources of Israelite history and law so as to provide a coherent religious narrative and legal foundation for the people. Earlier dates for this redaction have also been suggested.
​
The Documentary Hypothesis has been accepted by many biblical scholars, but is anathema to orthodox Jews since it removes divine authority from the Bible and replaces it with at most divine inspiration. It thus removes God from being the source of the ethical and ritual imperatives of the Torah.
​
The Documentary Hypothesis also assumes that when the redactor made his composite edition, the entire nation readily accepted it. This is an unlikely scenario. Writing a new version of the Torah may not have been a challenge to a creative writer, but having it accepted by all the Jewish people would have been well-nigh impossible. Moses needed a sound-and-light show on Mount Sinai and the appearance of God Himself in smoke and with thunder and lightning and the drawn-out sound of the shofar to convince the people of the authenticity of God’s revelation. Moreover, there is no Jewish textual source that discusses or even hints at such a redaction. An important innovation such as this would have been a major topic of discussion in the Mishna and Talmud.
​
The notion that different versions of the same story were composed by different sources does have logic to it, but is nevertheless a total misreading of the Torah. As modern orthodox biblical scholars have pointed out, there is a unity to the Torah. Scholars over the last century have also raised questions about the viability of the Documentary Hypothesis, and a modified version of the Documentary Hypothesis is now offered by some scholars that looks only at problem areas rather than the totality of the Torah text.2
​
However, a very noticeable feature of each of the twosomes is that they are configured around a different name of God — either YHWH or Elohim. This is not apparent in English, as both names are translated by the same word God, but is very obvious in the Hebrew.
​
These two names of God reflect two different types of relationships between God and man. These relationships are not an incidental feature but a fundamental aspect of the Torah.
​
That God should have different, and even contradictory aspects sounds strange to us, since we are used to thinking about God in unitary terms. Nevertheless, different names for the same person depending on the nature of a relationship is not remote to us. For example, the children of the president of the United States may refer to their father as “Dad,” while his wife may use his first name. It would be strange for her to refer to him as “Mr. President” in a family setting other than in jest. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for anyone other than family or a close friend to call the President by his first name to his face. Names such as “Dad” and “Mr. President” reflect different types of relationship with the President.
​
The “name” (or shem in Hebrew) of God is an important concept in the Torah. Hence, soon after arriving in Canaan, Abraham pitched his tent between Beth El and Ai and proclaimed the name of God: “. . . . he built there an altar to YHWH and he called out the name (shem) of God” (Genesis 12:8).
Invoking or calling out God’s name means more than just calling out a name. God has no physical form and hence His physical nature cannot be described. However, what can be elaborated upon is the notion of His existence and His attributes, and in particular those attributes that enable one to further one’s relationship with Him. The nature of these relationships is reflected in the Torah by three main names for God — YHWH, Elohim, and another name is less frequently mentioned in the Torah El Shaddai.
These different names for God were noted by Jewish sages at the time of the composition of midrashim and the Talmud, but this topic was not given particular emphasis. It did not, therefore, become a significant feature in the writings of the Medieval Jewish commentators. However, the authoritative biblical commentator Rashi, basing himself on midrashic sources, does discuss this topic in his commentary on the first sentence of the Torah. Rashi elucidates on the phrase “boro Elohim” (Elohim created) and why it was specifically Elohim Who did the creating and not YHWH:
​
Elohim created — it does not say YHWH created because at first it arose in thought [i.e., God considered so to speak] to create it with the attribute of strict judgment. But He saw that the world could not last [if He did]. He [therefore] gave precedence to the attribute of mercy and joined it to the attribute of strict judgment. This is [the meaning of] that which is written “On the day of YHWH’s making of earth and heavens. . . . (Genesis 2:4) [with the name YHWH preceding and joined to the name Elohim].3
This explanation does havae logic to it. It was, after all, YHWH Himself who explained His aspect of mercy after the sin of the golden calf:
​
YHWH descended in a cloud and stood with him [Moses] there, and He proclaimed the name of YHWH. YHWH passed before him and proclaimed: “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in kindness and truth. Extending kindness for two thousand [generations], forgiving iniquity, and willful sin and error and Who absolves — but does not absolve completely. He visits the iniquity of parents upon children and upon grandchildren, upon the third and fourth [generations]” (Exodus 34::5-7).
​
On the above verses, the Talmud comments:
​
And the Lord passed by before him and proclaimed." Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Were it not written in the verse, it would be impossible to say this. This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wrapped Himself in a prayer shawl like a prayer leader and showed Moses the order of the prayer. He said to him: Whenever the Jewish people sin, let them act before Me in accordance with this order, and I will forgive them.4
​
The explanation that Elohim represents God’s attribute of strict judgment while YHWH signifies His attribute of mercy fits appropriately into the two creation stories and the twice-given Ten Commandments. Nevertheless, although there is no argument about its validity, this notion has limited application in terms of exegesis beyond this. Throughout the 40-year desert experience, for example, there were many instances in which God displayed His attribute of strict and uncompromising justice, yet invariably the name YHWH is used. It would seem, therefore, that the name YHWH implies the potential for compassion and Elohim the potential for strict judgment.
​
As discussed in the previous chapter, the first modern, Jewish scholar to look beyond this explanation and examine the names of God from an academic perspective was Umberto Cassuto. His conclusions were summarized in a monograph entitled “The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch” and are listed in the following Table 1: 5
The names of God reflect two types of relationship between God and man. Elohim describes a transcendent God who is distant from man. Although existing high in the heavens, Elohim is, nevertheless, very much concerned with the general providence of mankind. The name YHWH, expresses the closeness or immanence of a God who is intimately involved in relationships with man and who provides both individual and national providence.
​
It is worth emphasizing that a single Deity being both immanent and transcendent would have been a radically new concept in the ancient world. In our own times, we have no difficulty in oscillating between these two perceptions of God because we are familiar with both. However, people in the ancient world would have had difficulty in conceptualizing the notion that the same God who created the universe was also interested in developing relationships with man. Pagan gods had specific functions within nature, such as arranging fertility and storms, but they never communicated with individuals, other than perhaps with a king.7
​
The Torah does not harmonize these contradictory aspects of God but expresses them through two names — YHWH and Elohim. This means that the names of God are not an incidental aspect of the Torah but an integral part of its structure. In fact, I go further than this in postulating that much of the Torah is about the relationship between man and God, and hence between man and the two aspects of God YHWH and Elohim.
​
This approach differs significantly from that of R’ Joseph B. Soloveitchik described in his influential essay “The Lonely Man of Faith,” and his idea that the two creation stories describe two different aspects of man.8
​
An approach that bears similarities to the approach of this website is that of R’ Mordechai Breuer (1921-2007). R’ Breuer emphasized the value of peshat. The widespread adoption of peshat in the Zionist yeshiva world may well be attributed to his efforts. This is particularly the case for Yeshivat Har Etzion and Herzog College. However, R’ Breuer’s main contribution to biblical studies is his system of shitat hebehinot, often referred to as "the approach of perspectives” within the Torah.9
​
R’ Breuer argued that the Torah is one divine work, but written with multiple, sometimes conflicting perspectives. Each “perspective” represents a true and valid divine viewpoint. His starting point was analyses of the Documentary Hypothesis. However, rather than seeing the text as a compilation of various authors with differing agendas, he saw these different passages as reflecting a multilayered truth and a deliberate component of divine revelation.
​
There are similarities in our approaches because the different sources comprising the Documentary Hypothesis can often be distinguished by the use of different names for God. This meant that R’ Breuer was able to interpret these different passages in relation to these names. The difference in my approach is that I focus solely on the names of God from the very beginning. I am also not seeking factual truth, as I regard many of the early chapters of Genesis as being allegorical, although the allegory reflects the message imparted by these divine names.
Let us now focus on these two names:
The name Elohim
The name Elohim is a name of God devised by man and has the meaning of “a force within nature.”10 The ending of the word Elohim with the letters “im” signifies that this name is in the plural. This is because God created and controls multiple powers within nature. Nevertheless, the verb attached to Elohim is usually in the singular, although there are exceptions.11 Elohim is also used in the Bible as a general term for “the Deity,” as well as a general name for judges, since they function as representatives of Elohim in providing justice.12
El was a general term for deity in the Semitic language, and was also the name of a supreme Canaanite god.
Elohim is a creator God in the first chapter of Genesis, and the universe He created has order, design and purpose. He is a distant and transcendent God. He is decisive, in that the laws of nature are immutable. In contrast to YHWH, He never changes His mind.
Despite existing beyond the universe, Elohim is not remote from the universe He created and is very much concerned with the general providence of His universe and the general providence of mankind. This is very different from the Aristotelian concept of God as the Prime Mover who created the world, gave it a push, and then left it to its own devices. Within later Jewish thought is the notion that the universe would even cease to exist without God’s continual input.
Elohim is the God of all humanity, in that our universe was created for all mankind and not for the adherents of one religion or group. The universal aspect of Elohim is evident in a number of places in the Pentateuch. Noah blesses his son Shem in the name of YHWH, but his son Japheth by the name Elohim (Genesis 9:26-27). Shem is the progenitor of the Semites, while Japheth is the progenitor of the Greek nations.
​
It is illuminating to follow the consistency of ideas and literary expressions underlying the names of God within the Pentateuch. Hence, in the first creation account we read:
​
Elohim blessed them [male and female] and Elohim said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky and every living thing that moves on the earth (ibid 1:28).
That man should procreate and populate the earth is not obvious. Even nowadays there are couples who limit their procreation because of their fear of nuclear annihilation, the problems associated with climate change, and the possibility of world starvation. If not for our trust in technology and diplomacy to overcome these problems, society could well come to the conclusion that procreation is a losing proposition. Such fears were very prevalent in the ancient world, since, as will be explained in the essay on Noah, humans had a very pessimistic attitude regarding the future of the world they lived in.
In the Noah story, Elohim emphasizes again the desirability of humanity populating the earth, and we find almost identical wording regarding procreation as in the creation account, again promoted through the name Elohim:
​
And Elohim blessed Noah and his sons, and He said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the land (ibid 9:1).
To obviate all future concerns, Elohim proceeds to make a covenant with Noah and all future humanity that there shall “never again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). A covenant is a formal way of making a promise to another party. The sign of this covenant will be a rainbow, created by Elohim, and linking heaven and earth.
The name YHWH
The name YHWH was not bestowed upon God by man, but was relayed by God to the Israelites via Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3:13-15). In contrast to Elohim, YHWH is an immanent God Who relates to man and woman on an individual level. He is therefore a God of individual providence. YHWH chose the seed of Shem to bring morality and the attributes of His name into this world. It was YHWH Who revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush as the personal God of the Jewish forefathers and the God Who will become the tribal God of the Israelite people.
The meaning of the name YHWH was made known to Moses as a function of the tenses of the verb “to be.”
​
Moses said to Elohim: “Behold, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them: ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you, and they say to me what is His name? What shall I say to them?’ Elohim answered Moses: “I Shall Be What I Shall Be (eheyeh asher eheyeh).”’ And He said: “So shall you say to the Children of Israel: ‘I Shall Be (eheyeh) has sent me to you.’” Elohim said further to Moses: “‘So shall you say to the Children of Israel; YHWH the God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My remembrance from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:13-15).
The most literal explanation of the name YHWH is that its meaning relates directly to the previous sentence, where God explains that His name conveys the meaning of “I shall be with” Moses in his mission and provide him with individual providence.
​
And He said: “For I shall be (eheyeh) with you — and this is the sign for you that I have sent you. When you take the people out of Egypt, you shall worship Elohim on this mountain” (Exodus 3:12).
YHWH will also provide the people with national providence that will persist forever:
​
This is My name forever, and this is My remembrance from generation to generation (Exodus 3:15)
Other explanations of this name have also been proposed that have significant philosophical implications and these are discussed in the reference.13
The name YHWH first appears in the Torah in the first sentence of the second creation story, but in combination with the name Elohim:
These are the generations (i.e., products) of the heaven and the earth when they were created, on the day that YHWH Elohim (God God) made earth and heaven (Genesis 2:4).
This double appellation for God is unusual in Hebrew. It is not as noticeable in English since the two names are usually translated as “the Lord God.” In Hebrew, however, it sounds just as it is written - God God. This combination occurs in only one other place in the Torah.14 All explanations as to why these two names are found together entail adding extra words, such as “YHWH [who is the same God as] Elohim [used in the previous chapter]” or “YHWH [who is] the Deity.”15
A question can be asked regarding this explanation. If the phrase “YHWH Elohim” is no more than an introduction to YHWH in terms of the name Elohim mentioned in the first chapter, or expresses no more than that YHWH is the Deity, why is this combination of names continued through chapters 2 and 3? Would not the opening sentence suffice?
A suggestion is that God related to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden on two different levels. On one level, they were two individuals who, until they were ejected from the Garden of Eden, had a personal relationship with YHWH. On the other, they were also representative of the entire human race, and this will be particularly relevant as regards their punishment or fate. This also is the concern of Elohim. Once they were ejected from the Garden of Eden, however, God related to Adam and Eve and their descendants via either His attribute of YHWH or Elohim depending on the circumstances.
As the God of individual providence and mercy, YHWH relates to man with more compassion than Elohim. This is very evident from two consecutive sections in the story of Noah. The first is a YHWH passage, while the passage immediately following is an Elohim passage:
And YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And YHWH regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And YHWH said: “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, to creeping things, and the birds of the air; for I regret having made them.” And Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH (Genesis 6:6-8).
The difference in God’s reaction in the next Elohim passage is very evident, although both relate to the same situation:
These are the generations of Noah; Noah was a righteous man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked (hithalech) with Elohim. And Noah fathered three sons, Shem, Ham and Yaphet. And the earth had become corrupt before Elohim, and the earth was filled with corruption. And Elohim looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. And Elohim said to Noah: “The end of all flesh has come before me; for the earth is filled with corruption through them; and, behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark of gopher wood (Genesis 6:9-14).
Interestingly, there are times in the Torah that YHWH appears to change His mind and this is evident in the above Noah passage: “And YHWH regretted that He had made man” (Genesis 6:9).
An answer is that that a relationship between man and God has to be two-way. Were YHWH to be non-responsive, then we are living in a deterministic world. Even requests to YHWH in prayer would be pointless since the outcome would be already determined. God would also never have the opportunity to demonstrate His attributes of righteousness and tzedakah and thereby be a model for human behavior.
Nevertheless, this does lead to the question. God knows the future. How could He not know that man would take the wrong path in the generation of Noah?
​
Rashi answers this question with an analogy from a midrash in which a non-Jew asks Rabbi Yehoshua this very question:
​
Do you not admit that the Holy One, Blessed is He foresees the future?” . . . Rabbi Yehoshua said to him. . . “Even though it was revealed before Him that their destiny was to sin and to suffer destruction, He did not refrain from creating them because of the righteous who are destined to arise from among them.16
Nevertheless, R’ Yehoshua’s reply does not quite answer the question as to why the text is written in a way that implies that God does not know the future.
​
There could be another answer. This is that God really does not know the future. Man has free will and YHWH can never know exactly how a person will choose. He may know what a person is likely to decide based on that person’s character and previous choices. He knows in what direction mankind is tending. He can also engineer the future. But He does not have complete foreknowledge. This approach is not generally accepted by the Jewish sages, but has been raised by a number of Jewish philosophers.17 To my mind, it is the explanation most compatible with the text.
​
It is noteworthy that the God associated with sacrifices in the Torah is always YHWH, since sacrifices are a means of drawing close to God. Thus, Noah builds an altar to YHWH (Genesis 8:20), even though it was Elohim who instructed him to leave the ark several sentences earlier (ibid 8:15). The single exception in the Torah is instructive:
Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took an olah-offering and peace-offering for Elohim, and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before Elohim (Exodus 18:12).
Based on Jethro’s previous comment “Now I know that YHWH is greater than all gods. . .” (Exodus 18:11) there is a Talmudic opinion that Jethro converted to Judaism.18 If this were the case, his offering should have been to YHWH and not Elohim. However, there is another way of looking at this passage. Jethro did not convert and his approach to God was as a universal, transcendent God. Jethro’s conception of God was so foreign to his son-in-law Moses, a prophet of YHWH, that he did not attend this first recorded ecumenical event in human history. Moses’ name is not mentioned as being among the guests —" only Aaron and all the elders of Israel.”
The names of God and the development of a tribal nation
​
Concomitantly with the Israelites becoming a tribal nation in Egypt is a changing relationship with God. Jacob was well aware of the protection provided to him by YHWH, but knowledge of YHWH seems to have been lost, or at least sublimated, by his family. Joseph speaks often about God, but it is invariably about Elohim, and it is likely that his conception of God was as a deity active among the nations rather than as a God providing him with direct providence.
​
Nevertheless, the text makes it clear that YHWH was active behind the scenes. This is evident when Potiphar’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph and Joseph’s rejection of her advances lands him in prison:
And it was after these things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and she said: “Lie with me.” But he refused: He said to his master’s wife “ . . . How then can I perpetrate this great evil; I will have sinned against Elohim?”. . . . Then Joseph’s master took him and placed him in the prison. . . . The prison warden did not scrutinize anything that was in his custody, because YHWH was with him [Joseph]; and whatever he would do YHWH would make successful (ibid 39:7-23).
The Israelites in Egypt also seemed to have had no awareness of YHWH. Hence, when they cry out to God because of their oppression, their prayers are directed to Elohim:
And it happened during those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the Children of Israel groaned because of the work and they cried out. Their cry because of the work went up to Elohim. And Elohim heard their moaning and Elohim remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. And Elohim saw the Children of Israel and Elohim knew (Exodus 2:23-25).
The first time that the name YHWH is mentioned in the Book of Exodus is at the burning bush when YHWH reveals Himself to Moses:
​
An angel of YHWH appeared to him [Moses] in flames of fire from within the bush . . . (Exodus 3:2).
From this point on, the focus of the Torah will change to an almost exclusive involvement of YHWH with the fate of the Israelite people.
​
In conclusion, there are two directions within Judaism. These are the particularistic or tribal aspect and also its universal mission, with the Jewish people being priests to all humanity. These missions are reflected in the two names of God. The story of Noah is the first time in the Torah that these two concepts are bound together as a single story. They then separate again as two independent accounts in the life of Abraham. This is because Abraham was both the forefather of the Jewish people and the spiritual mentor to the world at large. The name of God YHWH was lost or not recognized among the descendants of Jacob, but will be revealed again to the Israelites in Egypt through the agency of Moses.
There is an issue, though, that cannot be ignored. What is the significance of there being two creation stories and two stories embedded within the Noah account? How can there be two versions of the same facts? This issue will be discussed in the next chapter.
References
-
The sources in the Documentary Hypothesis are as follows:
J Source (Yahwist). This source uses primarily the name YHWH or "Yahweh" for the name of God. It is characterized by vivid, anthropomorphic descriptions of God. The second creation account is considered to be a J source. It is proposed that the J source was written in the southern Kingdom of Judah in about 950 BCE.
E Source (Elohist). The E source is found in narratives that emphasize the name of God "Elohim" in preference to YHWH, such as in Genesis chapters 20 to 22 where Abraham interacts with God using this name. The Covenant between the Pieces in chapter 15 and the promise to Abraham of descendants is often attributed to an Elohist source, although the name of God used is YHWH. Similarly, sections that feature Moses' encounters with God at the burning bush and the revelation of the divine name YHWH in Exodus chapter 3 are often considered Elohist passages. The E source emphasizes divine majesty and focuses on prophecies, dreams, angels, and divine promises. The E source is thought to have arisen in the Northern Kingdom of Israel and is dated by most scholars to the eighth century BCE. The E source was probably woven together with the J source after the fall of the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE, possibly by scribes from the Southern Kingdom of Judah. This fusion of E and J sources has been termed by some scholars the JE narrative.
P Source (Priestly): The P source focuses on ritual, genealogy, and priestly matters, and reflects a concern for order and ceremony. The P source is evident in the creation account of Genesis 1, which presents a structured and orderly depiction of God's creation over six days. This account also emphasizes the transcendent and majestic nature of God. The Noah account is a blend of J and P sources. The P source is prominent in the detailed instructions for the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 25-31) and the description of its rituals and furnishings (Exodus 35-40). These passages focus on the importance of proper worship and the role of the priests. The entire book of Leviticus is heavily influenced by the Priestly source with its detailed laws and regulations concerning sacrifices, rituals, purity, and the responsibilities of the priests, as are sections of Numbers, particularly those dealing with census data, genealogies, and rituals related to the priesthood (such as the consecration of the Levites and laws governing the priesthood). Scholars have identified elements of the P source throughout the Torah where there are detailed legal or ritualistic instructions, covenants, lists of genealogies and narratives that emphasize the importance of proper worship and adherence to religious laws. The priestly source was written in about the sixth century BCE, during or after the Babylonian Exile (587–539 BCE), although some scholars suggest it was completed and compiled during the post-exilic period (after 539 BCE) when the exiled Jewish community returned to Judah under Persian rule.
D Source (Deuteronomist). This source centers around the book of Deuteronomy, and emphasizes religious reform and law codes. It is thought to have been composed in the seventh century BCE, during the reign of King Josiah of Judah when a copy of this book was discovered in the Temple.
2. What Happened to the Documentary Hypothesis? in Biblical Archeology Review, p67, Fall 2024, volume 50, number 3.
​
3. Rashi to Genesis 1:1. He bases his comment on Genesis Rabbah 12:15: “At the beginning of creation, God intended to create the world with the attribute of judgment (middat ha-din). But seeing that the world could not endure it, He preceded it with the attribute of mercy (middat ha-rachamim), and partnered it with judgment.” Other sources are Genesis Rabbah 14:1, Exodus Rabbah 30:13 and Pesikta Rabbati 40.
​
4. TB Rosh Hashona 17b
​
5. Lecture 2, The Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p18, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York, 2006. Also, The Names of God in The Koren Siddur with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks. p xiv, Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2009.
​
6. Lecture 3, More about the Divine Names in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto, p32, Shalem Press, Jerusalem and New York 2006.
​
7. In the Noah story, God speaks freely to Noah. However, in the very similar Gilgamesh myth, the god Ea can only communicate with Upnapishtim about building an ark by speaking to the brick wall of his reed hut. See “Gilgamesh Tablet XI” in Myths from Mesopotamia. Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others by Stephanie Dalley, 110. Oxford University Press, Revised edition 2000.
​
8. http://www.traditiononline.org/news/converted/Volume%207/No.%202/The%20Lonely%20Man.pdf.
​
9. Mordechai Breuer. The Aspects Theory of Rav Mordechai Breuer. [In Hebrew]. Edited by Yosef Ofer. Alon Shvut. Tevunot, 2012. Also, Introduction. Breuer’s Shitat HaBehinot (Aspects Theory) in “In the Beginnings. Discovering the Two Worldviews Hidden within Genesis 1-11, p12, Gefen, Jerusalem.2023 and Rabbi Mordechai Breuer in “Great Biblical Commentators. Biographies, Methodologies and Contributions” by Avigail Rock. Maggid Books, 2023, p417.
​
10. Kuzari IV:1. This explanation also partially follows that of Nachmanides, as documented in his interpretation to Genesis. 1:1. Also, The Names of God in The Koren Siddur with Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks. p xiv, Koren Publishers Jerusalem, 2009.
​
11. An example is Genesis 20:13 where the verb for “caused” is in the plural. “And so it was, when Elohim caused me [i.e., Abraham] to wander from my father’s house, I said to her. .” Rashi comments on this phrase and points out other examples in the Bible where the accompanying verb is in the plural. He feels that it has no particular significance. However, a plural verb may also be used for emphasis as the majestic form of God. An example is Genesis 1:20 when God says “Let us make man.” A midrashic explanation for this is that God consulted with the administering angels.
​
12. Examples are "then his master shall bring him to God [Elohim], and shall bring him to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall bore through his ear with the awl, and he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:6) and: "If the thief is not found, then the householder shall come near to God [Elohim] that he had not laid his hand on his neighbor's property. For every item of liability, whether an ox, a donkey, a sheep, or a garment, or for any lost item about which he says: 'This is it,' the case of both parties shall come before God [Elohim]. Whomever God [Elohim] condemns shall pay double to his neighbor" (Exodus 22:7-9).
​
13. Consistent with this explanation is that of Rashi who interprets “ehyeh asher ehyeh” as: "I will be with them in this suffering, as I will be with them in future oppressions." Ibn Ezra also interprets “ehyeh” as a statement of God's eternal nature and reliability and reflecting His ongoing presence. Thus, God saying: "I will be with you" is both a promise and reassurance. He also notes that the future tense in Hebrew can imply the aspect of certainty and not just time. Sforno reads it as “I will be, as I will be” — meaning God will reveal Himself in ways appropriate to the needs of the people and according to their level. Each generation may experience God differently, but God is constant in essence. By contrast, Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part I, Ch. 63), sees “ehyeh” as a metaphysical declaration of existence. The phrase means “the One who necessarily exists.” God is pure being and is independent of all else. Nachmanides connects “ehyeh” to God's attribute of eternity and changelessness, and expressing God’s being across all time. It hence reflects the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), which also derives from the same root of to be.
​
14. An example is Exodus 9:30. Elohim in this instance may well be translated as the Deity.
​
15. See Rashi to Genesis 2:5. Rashi explains the name Elohim as being the ruler and judge over everything.
​
16. Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 6.6.
​
17. Most Jewish philosophers are in agreement that God has foreknowledge of people’s freewill choices before they are made. Nevertheless, there are orthodox philosophers, namely the Ralbag (Gersonides) and the Shlah who limit God’s foreknowledge. For a thorough review of this topic see “The Problem of Foreknowledge” in Illuminating Jewish Thought. Exploration of Freewill, the Afterlife, and the Messianic Era by Rabbi Natanel Wiederblank, 67-176. Maggid Books, 2018.
​
18. See TB Zevachim 116a.