<I>Quae secutae sunt magis defieri quam narrari possunt.</I> In the works of the second half of the twelfth century this fault becomes more and more perceptible, and signs of decadence begin to appear. Moreover, the writings at this time were very numerous, fostering, and, in turn, stimulated by, anti-Christian polemics. The greater number of the Tossafists study the Bible in conjunction with the Talmud. Citations are made of explanations or Biblical commentaries by Jacob of Orleans, Moses of Pontoise, Isaac the Elder, Isaac the Younger, Judah Sir Leon, Jehiel of Meaux, and Moses of Coucy. All these rabbis wrote Tossafot to the Bible as well as to the Talmud. This comparative study of Bible and Talmud was continued for some time, untill [until sic] at the beginning of the thirteenth century intellectual activity was exhausted. Original works were replaced by a large number of compilations, all related to one another, since the authors copied without scruple and pillaged without shame. Chief among these works, which bear the general title of Tossafot to the Torah and some of which have been printed, are <I>Hazzekuni,</I> by Hezekiah ben Manoah (about 1240), <I>Gan</I>[143] (Garden), by Aaron ben Joseph, (about 1250), <I>Daat Zekenim</I> (Knowledge of the Ancients), in which many exegetes are cited (after 1252), <I>Paaneah Razah</I> (Revealer of the Mystery), by Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi (about 1300), <I>Minhat Yehudah</I> (Offering of Judah), by Judah ben Eliezer (or Eleazar), of Troyes (1313), <I>Hadar Zekenim</I> (Glory of the Ancients; beginning of the fourteenth century), and <I>Imre Noam</I> (Pleasant Words), by Jacob of Illescas (middle of the fourteenth century). All these works were more or less inspired by Rashi, and some, such as <I>Hazzekuni,</I> might be called super-commentaries to Rashi. But these disciples were not true to the spirit of the master. They gave themselves up to the Haggadah more than he did, and also to a thing unknown to him, Gematria and mystical exegesis. Thus this French school, which for nearly a century had shone with glowing brilliance, now threw out only feeble rays, and abandoned itself more and more to the subtleties of the Midrash, to the fancifulness of the Gematria. It almost consigned to oblivion the great productions in rational exegesis, always excepting Rashi's commentaries, the popularity of which never waned, as much because of the author's renown as because of his concessions to the Midrash.