STOP Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in the world byJSTOR. Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early- journal-content . JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. 48 The Jewish Quarterly Eedew. THE DOGMAS OF JUDAISM. The object of this article is to say about the dogmas of Judaism a word which I think ought not to be left unsaid. In speaking of dogmas it must be understood that Judaism does not ascribe to them any saving power. The belief in a dogma or a doctrine without abiding by iis real or supposed consequences {e.g. the belief in creatio ex nihilo without keeping the Sabbath) is of no value. And the discussion about certain doctrines is not whether they possess or do not possess the desired charm against certain diseases of the soul, but whether they ought to be considered as characteristics of Judaism or not. It must again be premised that the subject, which occupied the thoughts of the greatest and noblest Jewish minds for so many centuries, has been neglected for a comparatively long time. And this for various reasons. First, there is Mendels- sohn's assertion, or supposed assertion, in his Jerusalem that Judaism has no dogmas — an assertion which has been ac- cepted by the majority of modern Jewish theologians as the only dogma Judaism possesses. You can hear it pronounced in scores of Jewish pulpits ; you can read it written in scores of Jewish books. To admit the possibility that Mendels- sohn was in error was hardly permissible, especially for those with whom he enjoys a certain infallibility. Nay, even the fact that he himself was not consistent in his theory, and on another occasion declared that Judaism has dogmas, only that they are purer and more in harmony with reason than those of other religions ; or even the more important fact, that he published a school-book for children, in which the so-called Thirteen Articles were embodied, only that instead of the formula " I believe," &c., he substituted " I am con- vinced," — even such patent facts did not produce much effect upon many of our modern theologians. They were either overlooked or explained away so as to make them harmonise with the great dogma of dogmalessness. For it is one of the attributes of infallibility that the words of its happy pro- The Dogmas of Judaism. 49 prietor must always be reconcilable even when they appear to the eye of the unbeliever as gross contradictions.^ Another cause of the neglect into which the subject has fallen is that our century is an historical one. It is not only books that have their fate, but also whole sciences and litera- tures. In past times it was religious speculation that formed the favourite study of scholars, in our time it is history with its critical foundation on a sound philology. Now as these two most important branches of Jewish science were so long neglected — were perhaps never cultivated in the true meaning of the word, and as Jewish literature is so vast and Jewish history so far-reaching and eventful, we cannot wonder that these studies have absorbed the time and the labour of the greatest and best Jewish writers in this century. Indeed, we cannot be grateful enough to such scholars as Zunz and Graetz, who have furnished us with the history of the Jewish literature and people. For what use is it to have a literature embracing all branches of human thought without under- standing it in the right way, and how shall we recognise Judaism in all its glory and significance for the world so long as its history remains a secret to us ? There is, besides, a certain tendency in historical studies that is hostile to mere theological speculation. The historian deals with realities, the theologian with abstractions. The latter likes to shape the universe after his system, and tells us how things ought to be, the former teaches us how they are or have been, and the explanation he gives for their being so and not otherwise includes in most cases also a kind of justification for their existence. There is also the odium theologictim, which has been the cause of so much misfortune in the history of the world that it is hated by the historian, whilst the superficial, rationalistic way in which the theologian manages to explain every thing which does not suit his system is most repulsive to the critical spirit. But it cannot be denied that this neglect has caused much confusion. Especially is this noticeable in England, which is essentially a theological country, and where people are but little prone to give up speculation about things which concern their most sacred interest and greatest happiness. Thus * Jerusalem, in Mendelssohn's SammtHche Werke (Vienna, 1838), especially from page 264 onwards, and a letter by him published in the Monatsschrift, 1859, p. 173. For Mendelssohn's position, see Graetz, Geschiclite, xi. 86 seq., especially p. 88 and note 1 ; Kayserling, Leben und Wirkenoi M., 2nd ed., p. 394 ; Steinheim, Moses Mendelssohn (Hamburg, 1840), p. 30 seq. ; Hold- heim, Moses Mendelssohn (Berlin, 1859), p. 18 seq. ; L. Lowe's pamphlet, JudiscJie Dogmen (Pest, 1871). E 50 The Jewish Quarterly Review. whilst we are exceedingly poor in all other branches of Jewish learning, we are comparatively rich in productions of a theological character. We have a superfluity of essays on such delicate subjects as eternal punishment, immortality of the soul, the day of judgment, &c., and many treatises on the definition of Judaism. But knowing little or nothing of the progress recently made in Jewish theology, of the many pro- tests against all kinds of infallibility, whether canonised in this century or in olden times, we in England still maintain that Judaism has no dogmas as if nothing to the contrary had ever been said. We seek the foundation of Judaism in national economy, in hygiene, in everything except religion. Following the fashion of the day to esteem religion in pro- portion to its ability to adapt itself to every possible and impossible metaphysical and social system, we are anxious to squeeze out of Judaism the last drop of faith and hope, and strive to make it so flexible that we can turn it in every direction which it is our pleasure to follow. But alas ! the flexibility has progressed so far as to classify Judaism among the invertebrate species, the lowest order of living things. It strongly resembles a certain Christian school which addresses itself to the world in general and claims to satisfy everybody alike. It claims to be socialism for the adherents of Karl Marx and Lassalle, worship of men for the followers of Comte and St. Simon ; it carefully avoids the word " God " for the comfort of agnostics and sceptics, whilst on the other hand it pretends to hold sway over paradise, hell, and im- mortality for the edification of believers. In such illusions many of our theologians delight. For illusions they are ; you cannot be everything if you want to be anything. Moreover illusions in themselves are bad enough, but we are menaced with what is still worse. Judaism, divested of every higher religious motive, is in danger of falling into gross materialism. For what else is the meaning of such declarations as " Believe what you like, but conform to this or that mode of life," what else does it mean but " We cannot expect you to believe that the things you are bidden to do are commanded by a higher authority; there is not such a thing as belief, but you ought to do them for conventionalism or for your own convenience." But both these motives — the good opinion of our neigh- bours, as well as our bodily health — have nothing to do with our nobler and higher sentiments, and degrade Judaism to a matter of expediency or diplomacy. Indeed, things have advanced so far that well-meaning but ill-advised writers even think to render a service to Judaism by declaring it to The Dogmas of Judaism. 51 be a kind of enlightened Hedonism, or rather a moderate Epicureanism.^ I have no intention of here answering the question, What is Judaism ? This question is not less perplexing than the problem, What is God's world ? Judaism is also a great In- finite, composed of as many endless Units, the Jews. And these Unit-Jews have been, and are still, scattered through all the world, and have passed under an immensity of in- fluences, good and bad. If so, how can we give an exact de- finition of the Infinite, called Judaism? But if there is anything sure, it is that the highest motives which worked through the history of Judaism are the strong belief in God and the unshaken confidence that at last this God, the God of Israel, will be the God of the whole world ^ ; or, in other words, Faith and Hope are the two most promi- nent characteristics of Judaism. In the following pages I shall try to give a short account of the manner in which these two principles of Judaism found expression, from earliest times up to the age of Mendelssohn ; that is, to present an outline of the history of Jewish Dogmas. First a few observations on the position of the Bible and the Talmud in relation to our theme. Insuffi- cient and poor as they may be in proportion to the import- ance of these two fundamental documents of Judaism, these remarks may nevertheless suggest a connecting link between ' This hygienic explanation of the dietary laws is not at all modem. It is refuted already by an author -who wrote at about the end of the 13th century. See Jellinek's Appendix to the Dialogue of R. Shem-Tob Palquera (Vienna, 1875). As a modern refutation, we shall only mention here that of Reggio, in his book riK'BIDI^'Bni minn (Vienna, 1827), p. 156 seq. See also Joel's Beitrdge, I., p. 99, note 2. We cannot here enlarge on this subject, which deserves a special study, but shall only direct attention to two passages in works of the 13th century. The Zohar, IV. 221a (ed. Krotoschin), runs as follows :—NniKna3 N^»n3 pD^'jn psi ivyan no "js p^'yas (D'ijh) jjn : poy iNE' ^3t3 nm' nnnni pen rvioan'pa pcVn ji^dn sVnpnNv- Compare the commentaries on the Haggadoth by R. Salomon ben Addereth, edited by Dr. Perles, in his biography of that Rabbi (Breslau, 1863), p. 31a, where the following passage occurs :— jD ny'JDH D3 mOKC HCnpn ^hT\^\ : n^mp d'nipj i:« v"?!?! p'?n ini«a noisj nniDsn D»bt3 nB3 occurs for the first time in the Sifra, 111b. See also Pessikta {ed. Buber), 163b, and Mechilta (ed. Fried- mann), 22b. In this last case it is doubtful whether we should read ^B^ or ^S^^. in another version of this Baraitha, the whole passage is wanting. Compare Hofmann, Magazine, xiii. 192. The Dogmas of Judaism. 55 is no world to come, and there is no reward for the just, and no punishment for the wicked."^ In another place we read that the commission of a sin in secret is an impertinent attempt by the doer to oust God from the world. But if unbelief is considered as the root of all evil, we may expect that the reverse of it, a perfect faith, would be praised in the most exalted terms. So we read : Faith is so great that the man who possesses it may hope to become a worthy vessel of the Holy Spirit, or, as we should express it, that he may hope to obtain by this power the highest degree of communion with his Maker. The Patriarch Abraham, notwithstanding all his other virtues, only became " the possessor of both worlds " by the merit of his strong faith. Nay, even the fulfilment of a single law when accom- panied by true faith is, according to the Rabbis, sufficient to bring man nigh to God. And the future redemption is also conditional on the degree of faith which will be shown by Israel.* It has often been asked what the Rabbis would have thought of a man who fulfils every commandment of the Torah, but does not believe that this Torah was given by God, or that there exists a God at all. It is indeed very difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty. In the time of the Rabbis people were still too simple for such a diplomatic religion, and conformity in the modem sense was quite an unknown thing. But from the foregoing remarks it would seem that the Rabbis could not conceive such a monstrosity as atheistic orthodoxy. For, as we have seen, the Rabbis thought that unbelief must needs end in sin, for faith is the origin of all good. Accordingly, in the case just supposed, they would have either suspected the man's orthodoxy, or would have denied that his views were really what he professed them to be. Still more important than the above cited Aggadic passages is one which we are about to quote from the Tracteite Synhedrin. This tractate deals with the constitution of the supreme law-court, the examination of the witnesses, the functions of the judges, and the different punishment to be inflicted on the transgressors of the law. After having enumerated various kinds of capital punishment, the Mish- nah adds the following words : " These are (the men) who are excluded from the life to come : He who says there is no ' Targum Jertishalmi, Gen. ir. 8. ^ Mechilta, 33b. Inntunerable passages of a similar character occur in the Babbinic literature. 56 The Jewish Quarterly Review. resurrection from death ; he who says there is no Torah given from heaven, and the Epikoros." ^ This Mishnah was considered by the Eabbis of the Middle Ages, as well as by modem scholars, the locus classicus for the dogma question. There are many passages in the Rabbinic literature which exclude man from the world to come for this or that sin. But these are more or less of a poetic legendary (Aggadic) character, and thus lend themselves to exaggeration and hyperbolic language. They cannot, therefore, be considered, as serious legal dicta, or as the general opinion of the Rabbis.^ The Mishnah in Synhedrin, however, has, if only by its position in a legal tractate, a certain Halachic character. And the fact that so early an authority as R. Akiba made additions to it guarantees its high antiquity. The first two sentences of this Mishnah are clear enough. In modern language, and, positively speaking, they would represent articles of belief in Resurrection and Revelation. Great difficulty is found in defining what was meant by the word Epikoros. The authorities of the middle ages, to whom we shall again have to refer, explain the Epikoros to be a man who denies the behef in reward and punishment; others identify him with one who denies the belief in Providence ; while others again think the Epikoros one who denies Tradition. But the parallel passages in which it occurs incline one rather to think that this word cannot be defined by one kind of heresy. It implies rather a frivolous treatment of the words of Scripture or of Tradition. In the case of the latter (Tradition) it is certainly not honest difference of opinion that is condemned; for the Rabbis themselves differed very often from each other, and even mediaeval authorities did not feel any compunction against explaining Scripture in variance with the Midrash, and sometimes they even went so far as to declare that the view of this or that great authority was only to be considered as an isolated opinion not deserving particular attention. What they did blame was, as already said, scoffing and impiety. We may thus ' The -words minn }D are undoubtedly a later interpolation, though it is not impossible that Rashi had them in lus text of the Mishnah. See Rab- binowitz, Variae Lectiones, IX., p. 247, note 1 . The Cambridge MS., published by Mr. Lowe, also omits these two words. See also Weiss, Beth Talmud, II., p. 287. * A collection of "such passages may be found in Schlesinger's notes to his German translation of the Ikkarim (Frankfurt, 1844), p. 677 seq. ; but his list is incomplete, and might be largely extended by quotations from the Sifre, etc. The Dogmas of Judaism. 57 safely assert that reverence for the teachers of Israel formed the third essential principle of Judaism.^ I have still to remark that there occur in the Talmud such passages as " the Jew, even if he has sinned, is still a Jew," or " He who denies idolatry is called a Jew." These and similar passages have been used to prove that Judaism was not a positive religion, but only involved the negation of idolatry. But it has been overlooked that the statements quoted have more a legal than a theological character. The Jew belonged to his nationality even after having committed the greatest sin, just as the Englishman does not cease to be an Englishman — in regard to treason and the like — ^by having committed a heinous crime. But he has certainly acted in a very un-English way, and having outraged the feelings of the whole nation wiU have to suffer for his misconduct. The Rabbis also did not maintain that he who gave up the belief in Revelation and Resurrection, and treated irreverently the teachers of Israel, severed his connection with the Jewish nation, but that, for his crime, he was going to suffer the heaviest punishment. He was to be excluded from the world to come. Still, important as is the passage quoted from Synhedrin, it would be erroneous to think that it exhausted the creed of the Rabbis. The liturgy and innumerable passages in the Mid- rashim show that they ardently clung to the belief in the advent of the Messiah. All their hope was turned to the future redemption and the final establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Judaism, stripped of this belief, would have been for them devoid of meaning. The belief in reward and punishment is also repeated again and again in the old Rabbinic literature. A more emphatic declaration of the belief in Providence than is conveyed by the following pas- sages is hardly conceivable. " Everything is foreseen, and free will is given. And the world is judged by grace." ^ Or " the born are to die, and the dead to revive, and the living to be judged. For to know and to notify, and that it may be known that He (God) is the framer and He the Creator, and He the Discerner, and He the Judge, and He the Witness," etc' ' Besides the ordinary commentaries to the Mishnah, account must be taken of the remiarks of Chasdai Crescas, Duran, Albo, and Abarbanel on the subject. Of modem writers, I mention Kampf, in the Monatssclirift, 1863, pp. 144 and 376 ; Oppenheim, ihid., 1864, p. 144 ; Friedmann, Beth Talmud, I., pp. 210 and 296. Compare also Rapoport, Erech Millin, p. 181, and Talm. diets, sub voce Dmp'QN. The explanation I have adopted agrees partly with Friedmann's, partly with Oppenheim's view. 2 ^6(.^7(, III.,9. » Ahoth, IV., 22. 58 The Jewish Quarterly Review. But it must not be forgotten that it was not the habit of the Rabbis to lay down either for conduct or doctrine rules which were commonly known. When they urged the three points stated above there must have been some historical reason for it. Probably these principles were controverted by some heretics. Indeed, the whole tone of the Mishnah is a protest against certain unbelievers who are threatened with punishment. Other beliefs, not less essential, but less disputed, remain unmentioned, because there was no necessity to assert them. It was not till a much later time, when the Jews came into closer contact with new philosophical schools, and also new creeds, that were more liable than heathenism was to be con- fused with Judaism, that this necessity was felt. And thus we are led at once to the period when the Jews became acquainted with the teachings of the Mohammedan schools. The Karaites came very early into contact with non- Jewish systems. And so we find that they were also the first to for- mulate Jewish dogmas in a fixed number, and in a systematic order. It is also possible that their separation from the Tradition, and their early division into little sects among them- selves, compelled them to take this step, in order to avoid further sectarianism. The number of their dogmas amounts to ten. According to Jehuda Hadassi (1150), who would appear to have derived them from his predecessors, their dogmas include the follow- ing articles : — 1. Creatio ex nihilo ; 2. The existence of a Creator, God ; 3. This God is an absolute unity as well as incorporeal ; 4. Moses and the other prophets were sent by God ; 5. God has given to us the Torah, which is true and complete in every respect, not wanting the addition of the so- called Oral Law ; 6. The Torah must be studied by every Jew in the original (Hebrew) language ; 7. The Holy Temple was a place elected by God for His manifestation ; 8. Resur- rection of the dead ; 9. Punishment and reward after death ; 10. The Coming of the Messiah, the son of David.^ How far the predecessors of Hadassi were influenced by a certain Joseph Albashir (about 950), of whom there exists a manuscript work, "Rudiments of Faith," I am unable to say. The little we know of him reveals more of his intimacy with Arabic thoughts than of his importance for his sect in particular and for Judaism in general.^ After Hadassi I shall mention 1 I have followed the exposition of the late Dr. Frankl, the greatest Karaitic soholar.of our time. See his article " Karaiten " in the Encyclopddie of Ersch and Gruber, section II., vol. 83, p. 18. Compare Jost's GesehicMe, II., oh. 13, where the articles of Bashazi are given. ' Concerning this author see Frankl's Ein Mutazilitischer Kalam, and his Beitrage znr Liter aturgeschichte der Karder (Berlin, 1887). The Dogmas of Judaism. 59 here Elijah Bashazi, a Karaite writer of the end of the 15th century. This author, who was much influenced by Maimonides, omits the second and the seventh articles. In order to make up the ten he numbers the belief in the eternity of God as an article, and divides the fourth article into two.^ In the fifth article Bashazi does not emphasize so strongly the completeness of the Torah as Hadassi, and omits the portion which is directed against Tradition. It is interesting to see the distinction which Bashazi draws between the Pentateuch and the Prophets. While he thinks that the five books of Moses can never be altered, he regards the words of the Prophets as only relating to their contemporaries, and thus subject to changes.^ As I do not want to anticipate Maimonides' system we must refrain from giving here the articles laid down by Solomon Troki in the beginning of the 18th century. For the articles of Maimonides are copied by this writer with a few slight alterations so as to dress them in a Karaite garb.' We must dismiss the Karaites with these few remarks, my object being chiefly to discuss the dogmas of the Synagogue from which they had separated themselves. Besides, as in everything Karaitic, there is no further development of the question. As Bashazi laid them down, they are still taught by the Karaites of to-day. We return to the Rabbanites. As is well known Maimonides (1130 — 1205) was the firet Rabbanite who formulated the dogmas of the Synagogue, But there are indications of earlier attempts. R. Saadjah Gaon's (892 — 942) work, " Creeds and Opinions," shows such traces. He says in his preface, " My heart sickens to see that the belief of my co-religionists is impure and that their theological views are confused." The subjects he treats in this book, such as creation, unity of God, resurrec- tion of the dead, the future redemption of Israel, reward and punishment, and other kindred theological subjects might thus, perhaps, be considered as the essentials of the creed that the Gaon desired to present in a pure and rational form. R. Chananel, of Kairowan, in the first half of the 11th century, says in one of his commentaries that to deserve the eternal life one must believe in four things : in God, in the prophets, in a future world where the just will be rewarded, and in the advent of the Redeemer.* From R. Jehuda Halevy's " Kusari," 1 See IHvS nnS, (Groslow, 1835) p. 48, where whole passag:es are verbally- copied from Maimonides. - Encyclopadie, p. 16. ^ See JTIDN, p. 17a, edited by Dr. Neubauer, and our Appendices A and B. * Rapoport, liikkvre Haittim, XII., p. -18. 60 The Jetcish Quarterly Review. written in the beginning of the 12th century, we might argue that the belief in the election of Israel by God was the cardinal dogma of the author. Abraham Ibn Daud, a contemporary of Maimonides, in his book " Emuna Ramah," speaks of rudi- ments, among which, besides such metaphysical principles as unity, rational conception of God's attributes, &c., the belief in the immutability of the Law, &c., is included.-^ Still, all these works are intended to furnish evidence from philosophy or history for the truth of religion rather than to give a definition of this truth. The latter task was undertaken by Maimonides. I refer to the thirteen articles embodied in his first work, " The Commentary to the Mishnah." They are appended to the Mishnah in Synhedrin, with which we dealt above. But though they do not form an independent treatise, Maimonides' remarks must not be considered as merely incidental. That Maimonides was quite conscious of the importance of this exposition can be gathered from the concluding words addressed to the reader : " Know these (words) and repeat them many times, and think them over in the proper way. God knows that you would be deceiving yourself if you think you have understood them by having read them once or even ten times. Be not, therefore, hasty in perusing them. I have not composed them without deep study and earnest reflection." The result of this deep study was that the following Thirteen Articles constitute the creed of Judaism. They are : — 1. The belief in the existence of a Creator. 2. The belief in his Unity. 3. The belief in his Incorporeality. 4. The belief in his Eternity. 5. The belief that all worship and adoration are due to him alone. 6. The belief in Prophecy. 7. The belief that Moses was the greatest of all Prophets, both before and after him. 8. The belief that the Law was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. 9. The belief in the Immutability of this revealed Torah. 10. The belief that God knows the acts of men. 11. The belief in Reward and Punishment. 12. The belief in the coming of the Messiah. 13. The belief in the Resurrection of the dead.''^ ' See HDT nJIDS, pp. 44 and 69. Compare Gutmann's essay on this author in the Moiiatsschrift, 1877-8, especially 1878, p. 304. ^ For the various translations of the Thirteen Articles, which were originally composed in Arabic, see Steinschneider, Cat. Bod., p. 1887, where references to modern literature may be found. Compare Rosin, Ethik des Maimonides, p. 30, note 4. In Appendix A will be given the version of Alcharizi from an Oxford MS. See also Chajoth, D^X^IJ miD, and his nCD*? mNSn, p. 17a. His reading of Article 13, given on De Rossi's authoritv, is an interpolation from Maimonides' CDDn n"nn "IDND. See n''3'y niND ed. Cassel, p. 93. Compare Weiss, Beth Talmud, I., p. 330, Ben Chananjah, 1863, p. 942, and 1864, pp. 648 and 697. See also Dr. N. M. Adler's Introduction to ^3'? nVriJ, ch. 4. The Dogmas of Judaism. 61 The impulse given by the great philosopher and still greater Jew was eagerly followed by succeeding generations, and Judaism thus came into possession of a dogmatic literature such as it never knew before Maimonides. Maimonides is the centre of this literature, and I shall accordingly speak in the remainder of this essay of Maimonists and Anti-Maimonists. These terms really apply to the great controversy that raged round Maimonides' " Guide of the Perplexed," but I shall, chiefly for brevity sake, employ them in these pages in a restricted sense to refer to the dispute concerning the Thirteen Articles. Among the Maimonists we may probably include the great majority of Jews, who accepted the Thirteen Articles without further question. Maimonides must indeed have filled up a great gap in Jewish theology, a gap, moreover, the existence of which was very generally perceived. A century had hardly elapsed before the Thirteen Articles had become a theme for the poets of the Synagogue. And almost every country where Jews lived can show a poem or a prayer founded on these Articles.^ R. Jacob Molin (1420) speaks of metrical and rhymed songs in the German language, the contents of which were the Thirteen Articles, and which were read by the common people with great devotion.^ The numerous commentaries and homilies written on the same topic would form a small library in themselves. But on the other hand it must not be denied that the Anti-Maimonists, that is to say those Jewish writers who did not agree with the creed formulated by Maimonides, or agreed only in part with him, form also a very strong and respectable minority. They deserve our attention the more as it is their works which brought life into the subject and deepened it. It is not by a perpetual Amen to every utterance of a great authority that truth or literature gains anything. S. SCHECHTER. \To ie concluded.'] 1 In Appendix B will be given a collection of such poems both from MSS and rare printed books. Appendix A will contain a bibliographical account of the commentaries on the Thirteen Articles from similar sources. * See Maharil, ed. Sahionetta, 113a. Compare Landshut, Amude Jla- Ahoda, p. 231.