Question about “If I had known, I would have”

Now that I hear what I've heard all along, I'm a little indignant. And I'm amazed, if we're not him - and we can't understand him - then how are we authorized by him to step into his shoes? To understand him?

And in my opinion, it's heresy to use this expression, my current opinion, because on the one hand we are commanded to know the ’ and how can we be commanded to do something that we can't do! Know the God of your father!
I'd be happy for an explanation that makes sense!

If you would like an explanation, please take the time to explain your question briefly and clearly. I recommend leaving the anger aside.

First, one must distinguish between the "knowledge of God" and the "knowledge" of God as if it were within the scope of "existence" according to the concepts of human cognition and given as an (external) object of knowledge, similar to any other object in reality as given in experience, that is, as "existence" and one of the things that are embodied in the framework of natural perception or in the revealed "world". In order to clearly understand the correct meaning and deep intention expressed by the sages of Israel in this well-known saying, "If I knew it, I would be", one must understand that "knowledge of God" is not a synonymous term and is not equivalent to "knowledge of God". The word "knowledge" in biblical Hebrew does not mean "knowledge" but as explained in the Torah of Hasidism (Mishnah Chabad), "knowledge" means "feeling and attachment" and in another style, "the adhesion of spirit to spirit", meaning a direct, deep and rooted connection between things from the heart of their fundamental essence that brings them to a general adherence and uniqueness to one another, or alternatively, this self-connection is noble and continues directly from the source of the original unity, as "two are better than one". "Knowledge" from this indicates the secret of "pairing" In Kabbalah, it is the status and state of unity (covenant) between the male and female, which constitute two complementary aspects (Zel”7 Elohim) or opposing but complementary aspects of the same one and all-encompassing spiritual essence called “Adam” according to what is written in Genesis: “Male and female He created them, etc.’ and He called their name Adam”. Therefore, when it is written “And the man knew Eve his wife” it means that the two were included and became one entity in themselves in the sense of “one flesh” (The opposite of the word "break" indicates the matter of the correction that unites and unites two opposites or halves of one whole "Yesh." Therefore, the knowledge of God means the state of true devotion to the source of eternal life in God (and you who adhere to Him and the like) in the secret of the pure intention of unity (in Kabbalah, the intention of the Shema indicates the consideration of a "middle line" among the three lines of correction of the world in which the ten sephirahs of Ahah hang, and the "knowledge" is fixed in a middle line). This direct intention to the Name (Yisra-El) is the very essence of knowledge as its complete correction as it exists and stands from the beginning in its ancient origin and root and there is no sin in it (the sin of the intention of uniqueness), that is, knowledge is the foundation of the intention to the Name – for the sake of uniqueness and complete pairing . On the other hand, “knowing G-d” is not possible at all, mainly because the Holy One cannot in principle be given as an “external” object for our knowledge, perception and attainment, including abstract attainment in the image of thought and intellect, since “thought perception is in general” (Cited in the article “Pethah Eliyahu” in the corrections of the Zoch) And as for what is written in the Rambam’s principles, “He will not be attained by those who attain the body.” Therefore, it is imperative that only the Almighty alone knows and is able to know Himself in a complete and absolute manner, and this necessarily does not involve knowledge that depends on the thing that is subject to it and given against it in order to hold on to it, as it were, as the content of this knowledge. Hence, the thing that is subject to knowledge is also the necessary condition for the very possibility of this knowledge. But with the Almighty, there is no distinction between knowledge, the object of knowledge, and the subject, who is the knower or bearer of knowledge, since the three distinct aspects or faces (not separate) from each other, which are the knower, the knowledge, and the known (Rambam's version of the Aristotelian trinity: the intellect, the enlightened, and the enlightened), are essentially one and therefore are not examined separately or distinguished from each other at all, meaning that God's so-called knowledge of Himself is nothing but a kind of embodied being within Him and is not added to His very existence, but rather it and the Almighty are truly one and therefore this "knowledge" is completely self-existent and present by virtue of God's very essence and essence alone (although there is absolutely nothing else besides Him). It is not possible to know Him as His very complete and absolute truth, as His very original essence, since He is complete, unique, and utterly unique. Therefore, if I knew, it means that He existed, and if He existed, then I did not know Him at all as the object of this knowledge. In other words, the knowledge of God Himself is nothing more than a borrowed name, but it is not in the category and quality of "knowledge" at all as we understand it, since it is without any arrangement or relation at all and is not at all similar, neither in kind nor in part, to human knowledge, which is deficient and dependent on something by its nature and is distinguished into three aspects, as stated above. And this is precisely what the words of the prophecy, "not my thoughts, your thoughts, etc.", are directed at. There is no knowing God except knowing. Devotion does not mean knowledge of God; rather, on the contrary, true devotion is "until you do not know." (And in relation to the term found in Kabbalistic thought: "Risha, I will not know at all") and also "Knowledge, not knowing" since the purpose of knowledge is precisely to not know and it means to be in a state and condition of not knowing in a manner of "forever", that is, "forever and ever". And until the end of knowledge, the purpose of knowledge and its actual nullification (also called “the absence of the self” in Hasidic thought) and this is precisely the main essence of faith in the Name, which is adherence and knowledge of the truth (dead as the letters of the word “tame,” meaning that the innocence of knowledge is acquired through faith, which is the nullification of knowledge in the sense of “not knowing”; and thus the nature of knowledge has actually changed, and thus man is found to be dead and tam, i.e., complete in the sense of “the One who teaches the Master of the world, who knows it and is its predecessor). Maimonides explains these issues at length through his profound study, in his philosophical doctrine that he lectures systematically in his book “The Teacher of the Perplexed,” as well as in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, chapter “Scientifics,” the first of the parts of his work “Mishnah Torah.” The Strongest One, see there.