Question

Hello Rabbi, I would appreciate clarification on several issues discussed in lesson 3 of the Free Will and Choice series.
1. In the dispute between Maimonides and the Raavad—the Rabbi said that in his view, the Raavad’s position splits into two parts: 1. the source of the information, 2. that God knows the topology. Regarding 2, I agree; that really is the Raavad’s position in the plain sense. But regarding the distinction, I don’t quite agree. The beginning of the Raavad’s answer, in my opinion, addresses the question, “If God does not know, isn’t that a deficiency?” And that is what the Raavad first answers: “And now that the Creator has removed this dominion from His hand and placed it in the hand of man himself, His knowledge is not a decree, but is like the knowledge of the astrologers, who know by another power what this person’s ways will be.” Basically, translated into contemporary language: God gave choice into man’s hands and in the process limited His knowledge so that He knows the way astrologers know (regarding the accuracy of astrologers’ information, there is the famous story of Rabbi Akiva’s daughter). So really the Raavad only gave an introduction to his answer (which again I agree is the Rabbi’s position—I think it is exactly your position).
2. Maimonides’ approach—the Rabbi asked a question about Maimonides’ approach. True, I cannot understand the Creator’s knowledge, but if God is infinite and omnipotent, then He must also have knowledge like mine! So I was left with the same question.
Um… in my humble opinion, the Rabbi did not understand Maimonides’ approach precisely. What Maimonides answered was not that he left the question in place and simply said there is no answer; rather, he said that the question itself deals with concepts that we are incapable of understanding, meaning that from our perspective there is no question at all… because every such question relates to the essence of the Creator, which cannot be grasped.
Now I know that so far I haven’t really answered, but this introduction is important for the point: in Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, chapter 2, law 10, Maimonides writes that not only the essence of the Creator and His knowledge are things we do not understand, but also His life. And that is the point—all things connected to the Creator are irrelevant and beyond the grasp of anyone who is not the Creator, and therefore every question and the very framing of a question regarding the Creator—the basic assumption that one can ask it—is mistaken.
3. The holy Or HaChaim—on Genesis 6:5, which the Rabbi quoted in the lesson, the Or HaChaim explicitly says that he accepts Maimonides’ approach, so it is not that he claims God does not know—but again, as I said in 2.
But it is true that what he writes looks like shutting one’s eyes. It seems to me that it is not shutting one’s eyes but ignoring: God really does know (again, as Maimonides said), only when the Jewish people do evil, He simply “doesn’t care”; He overlooks it… as he explicitly says: “For when He does not set His heart to it, He does not know—not so; and even so, כביכול He exists in this aspect, as it is written: ‘He did not look’”; He notices and does not notice = overlooking it…
I’d be happy for a response, thanks.