1

Which, if any, of the Thirteen Articles of Faith require sources outside the five Torah books?

1 G-d guides and creates,
2 is unique and eternal,
3 is not physical,
4 is first and last,
5 and to him alone is it proper to pray.
6 All the words of the prophets are true,
7 Moses being preeminent,
8 the Torah given to him is that which we have,
9 and will never be exchanged.
10 G-d knows the thoughts and deeds of all,
11 rewards and punishes observance and violations of commandments,
12 will one day send the Messiah,
13 and, when he wishes it, will resuscitate the dead.

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
chrysanthemum
  • 378
  • 1
  • 13
  • http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/26434/who-authored-the-13-ani-maamins – Gershon Gold Aug 31 '15 at 17:28
  • a quarter of an hour with google suggests that one of the verses used for #13 is Exodus 3:6 - "I am, He said, the G-d of your father, the G-d of Abraham, the G-d of Isaac, and the G-d of Jacob." – chrysanthemum Aug 31 '15 at 19:51
  • @chrysanthemum That is indeed the verse i was referencing. How it is used to refer to the resurrection of the dead is that since God is a God of the living, not of the dead, and God is speaking about Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the present tense, then clearly they must not either be dead, or will not remain dead. The other proof verses used in Sanhedrin are of the same vein. – Aaron Aug 31 '15 at 21:01
  • @Aaron what I found online told me the Exodus verse, but not where I could find the bit about the living and the dead - please could you me that? – chrysanthemum Aug 31 '15 at 21:04
  • @chrysanthemum Matthew 22:31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” – Aaron Aug 31 '15 at 21:22
  • @Aaron ah right, I misunderstood. I thought that it was being implied that that line too was to be found in one of the five Torah books. – chrysanthemum Aug 31 '15 at 21:27
  • Related: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/45859 – msh210 Aug 31 '15 at 21:40
  • @Aaron That proof doesn't begin to hold water. It's nonsensical (why don't the dead need G-d too?), heretical (it implies that there is some part of existence - the post-death one - not under G-d's control), and contrary to the well-known statement of Chazal (Bereishis Rabbah 94:5; Rashi, Bereishis 31:42) which says the opposite, that Hashem's name isn't associated with a human being until they're dead (or blind, in Yitzchak's case). The proof the Gemara, lehavdil, brings regarding the avos is from Deut. 11:21 mentioned in DanF's answer. – Shamiach Sep 01 '15 at 00:02
  • @Shamiach I'm not implying that the dead don't need God too, but we are splitting hair here. If you were to tell me that "As it is written, And ye shall give thereof the Lord's heave offering to Aaron the priest.3 But would Aaron live for ever; he did not even enter Palestine, that terumah4 should be given him?5 But it teaches that he would be resurrected, and Israel give him terumah. Thus resurrection derived from the Torah. " i wouldn't say you're wrong and nonsensical and offer up the words of Rabbi Ishmael – Aaron Sep 01 '15 at 00:10
  • @Shamiach We are dealing with something metaphysical here, and the more you try to put it in a halakhic box the more you take away from it. – Aaron Sep 01 '15 at 00:10

1 Answers1

1

The source for Rambam's 13 principles are detailed in his intro. to Talmud Sanhedrin chapter 10.

He cites at least 1 Torah verse for each of the 13 principles except for #5, which can be inferred by "reverse logic" in that there are many verses that prohibit devotion to other gods.

#6 (surprisingly) does not reference a particular verse.

#13 also does not list a specific verse. Rather, Ramba"m seems to indicate that he discussed this topic in other places, but it's unclear where this is.

For #13, I'm a bit surprised that Ramba"m didn't cite Rashi s explanation on Deuteronomy 11:21:

לְמַ֨עַן יִרְבּ֤וּ יְמֵיכֶם֙ וִימֵ֣י בְנֵיכֶ֔ם עַ֚ל הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר נִשְׁבַּ֧ע יְהוָ֛ה לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶ֖ם לָתֵ֣ת לָהֶ֑ם כִּימֵ֥י הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ (ס)

(Sefaria translation)

that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth.

Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:21:2:

לתת להם. לתת לכם אין כתיב כאן, אלא לתת להם, מכאן נמצינו למדים תחית המתים מן התורה:

My translation:

It doesn't state (to give) to you, but "to give to them". From this, we learn that the concept of Resurrection of the dead is mentioned in the Torah.

DanF
  • 70,416
  • 8
  • 59
  • 244
  • Thank you. For #6 I had guessed that it might have been derived from Deuteronomy 18:15-22. – chrysanthemum Aug 31 '15 at 20:59
  • @chrysanthemum I had thought of that, myself. It certainly does appear to indicate that there will be prophets after Moses and they are assigned to speak G-d's words, which are assumed to be true unless you see that the prophet predicts something that doesn't happen (I'm puzzled about this rule, BTW; that sounds "risky" if the prophet says, "do this or you will die". Do you want to find out if you will die or not?) or if he speaks about other gods. – DanF Aug 31 '15 at 21:30
  • This shows that there is a source (for most of the thirteen) from within the Pentateuch, but doesn't demonstrate that no source is required from outside it. (I can't imagine why there would be, but that seems to be what the OP is asking.) – msh210 Aug 31 '15 at 21:38
  • @msh210 I agree with you. However, in particular, regarding #8, Ramba"m does not mention the verses that the OP commented on (and I agree with) which comes from the Torah. Instead, Ramba"m indicates words cited by actual prophets such as Malachi, etc. which is is a source outside the Torah. #13, also, has a source in the torah, as I indicated, but for some reason, Ramba"m is not using it. Unfortunately, I couldn't quite understand specifically where Ramba"m gets his source for #13. – DanF Aug 31 '15 at 21:46
  • 2
    No indication he had Rashi, or that he would have been a fan of Rashi in general if he had his commentary (his son was not a fan). Furthermore, this is obviously eisegesis, or at best, exegesis, but not p'shat. IIRC all of his proof-texts avoid exegesis. – mevaqesh Aug 31 '15 at 22:18
  • @mevaqesh I didn't know that history about Rambam's son. At any rate, deciphering Rambam's sources which there are few is a very difficult challenge if it can be done at all, in most cases. That's one of the reasons, many of his contemporaries disliked him. – DanF Aug 31 '15 at 22:22
  • @DanF not sure what your point is. I was responding to the question of why he didnt quote rashi's drash. the answer is, I dont know that he saw it, and if he did he probably would not have liked it, and if he liked, he still probably would not quote such a drash as one of his source texts. – mevaqesh Aug 31 '15 at 22:25
  • There are two points to the belief in resuscitation of the dead as pointed out in the beginning of Chelek. One is the belief in it happening, and one is the belief that it is alluded to in the Torah. The drush you quote from Rashi is found in Sanhedrin 90b and was used to prove the allusion in the Torah. The fact that Rambam does not mention in his Yad the need to believe it is alluded in the Torah has led some to believe it is not as instrumental as Rashi makes it sound. See in fact Tiferes Yisrael's Drush Or HaChaim where he claims Rashi & Gemara also did not mean we must believe its alluded – user6591 Sep 01 '15 at 00:04
  • To in the Torah. – user6591 Sep 01 '15 at 00:08
  • @msh210 the reason behind the question is this: if all 13 articles can be sourced in the 5 Torah books, then through weekly study, sooner or later, one year or another, that connection will become apparent. That wouldn't necessarily happen if any of them required a source in, say, the prophets. To me - though I don't own the question - it doesn't matter whether or not Maimonides himself cites the sources, though its interesting to know (purposeful enquiry vs interested curiosity) – chrysanthemum Sep 01 '15 at 06:43
  • @DanF can Genesis 25.8 be used for #13 too? "And Abraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin" – chrysanthemum Sep 01 '15 at 11:27
  • @chrysanthemum I think that last expression is a common expression that the Torah used to mean "he rested (or "joined" his forefathers. I have to check its meaning further and get back to you. At any rate, offhand, it doesn't seem to prove resurrection. – DanF Sep 02 '15 at 02:37
  • @DanF ah right. I thought I noticed a difference between that and "the pit" that psalms mention being saved from. Being gathered to one's kin sounds like an improvement on that! If you find something useful, would that be worth an independent question? "What, if anything, does Genesis mean by saying Abraham was 'gathered to his kin'?" – chrysanthemum Sep 02 '15 at 10:54
  • @chrysanthemum "The pit" or "Sheol", if that's what I think you were looking at, is also not a reference to resurrection. But, w/o a clear ref. to which Psalm you were viewing, I can't say for sure. As for making a new MY question, it makes sense if you can phrase your question so that you aren't seeking just a plain word definition. – DanF Sep 02 '15 at 13:01