good

How did the author know the Book of Psalms?

Written by the Holy Spirit, right?
But there are also older sources. In the Torah itself we are commanded to “do what is right and good”. And in several places God says that He will do us good and condemns evil and so on.

A. G-d commands us to do what is right and good, and you say that the word "merciful" is that "merciful" itself is good? Or do you assume that G-d fulfills the entire Torah and, just as He puts on tefillin, He acts according to what is right and good?

B. When in the Torah (and the Bible) it is written about G-d with all kinds of adjectives, the meaning (probably, or it is easy to interpret this way) is that He will act in this way. "And I have heard that I am merciful" means that if he cries out, then I will act with mercy towards him. Today, when this apparently does not happen (providence, etc.), then on the face of it, the entire verse does not apply to our day (and not that he remains “himself”a scoundrel, but that new reasons cause him to cease doing so. Perhaps the new reasons were actually in the past, and therefore only there did he act with clemency?).

C. What does it matter whether God is good or not, that is, in my terms, whether he is interested in the idea of suffering and pleasure at all.

A. According to both options, it turns out that he is good. But I meant the first (the assumption underlying the second option is a mythical demand in the first place).
B. It does happen. But not by intervening at every moment but by the very structure of the world.
C. I have no idea. But when he tells us that he is good, he is apparently interested in suffering and pleasure.

A. If on the side of the reason you read, then as in all other halakhic laws you assume that the reason is an unknown halakhic value, then why in the halakhic law or in the moral recommendation to do what is right and good do you refrain from assuming a reason for an unknown halakhic value and that it flows into ordinary human taste.
B. It seems quite clear to me that when the Bible describes the name as gracious, it means at least that the name acts in a gracious manner. This is what emerges from the contexts, and it also turns out that they did not come to tell us just irrelevant things about the essence of the Holy One. And today this does not happen as you wrote in the Mk. 1 for the most part. Now one can think that ”He is truly gracious” but that nowadays there are reasons why He ceases to exercise His grace, or that ”He is truly not gracious” but that in the past there were reasons why He exercised His grace. And between (at least) these two interpretations one must choose the reasonable one. I didn't understand what you said about that.

A. On the contrary, Pook Hezi, who even enumerates the commandments, does not list “and do what is right and good” among the commandments. This is not a law but a Torah instruction, that is, morality.
B. He does indeed act as a nerd. When he creates the world, he does it in the best possible way. The lack of intervention stems from good reasons and therefore does not indicate that he is not a nerd.

(According to what is described in Genesis, good precedes God. God does something and then he sees that it is very good. Or, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil, from which it is implied that good and evil precede God.)

But, what does it matter to God that what he made is good? Apparently otherwise God would not have been pleased with the matter. And what makes him good is the fact that he created the world and chose to leave it because it turned out that what he created was good.
In other words, what defines a person as good is a person who enjoys good things (and abhors bad things), a bad person enjoys bad things.

And in this simple sense, God is good.