<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:00:23 -0500<BR>R' Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Levine@stevens.edu><BR>Wrote: Subject: [Avodah] Some Jewish Philosophy Is Based on Arab Thinkers<BR> <BR>>The following is from the new translation of <BR>>RSRH's commentary on Chumash Bereishis 16:14. You <BR>>may read Rav Hirsch's complete commentary on this <BR>>Pasuk at <A href="http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/arab_jew_bereishis.pdf" target=_blank><FONT color=#8c5940>http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/arab_jew_bereishis.pdf</FONT></A><BR> <BR>>...The ideas on the unity of God in the writings<BR>>of the Jewish philosophers to the extent that these ideas are developed<BR>>philosophically are based largely on the intellectual work<BR>>of Arab thinkers. They attained emunah ? but they did not attain the<BR>>mitzvos.<BR> <BR>
Two brief comments:<BR>
<BR>
1. I am much indebted to Prof. Levine for this reference, especially because of this bringing to my attention the beautiful explanation by RSRH as to the mitzvah of "ve-ahavtah" and its relationship to "shemah". Quite beautiful and profound. <BR>
<BR>
2. RSRH , IIRC, in chapter 18 of his nineteen letters criticizes the Rambam for his use of Greek philosophers as RSRH advocates the use of Jewish sources. The Greek philosophers referenced were actually transmitted through Arabic sources- so I assume that RSRH while praising and showing the deficiencies of such philosophers in his Chumash commentary, was much more negative in his approach to such outside sources of religious philosophy in his Nineteen Letters. <BR>
Can these two approaches be explained and perhaps reconciled.<BR>
<BR>
KT<BR>Eliyahu<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR> <BR><RTE_TEXT></RTE_TEXT></body>
</html>