Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners 1

Hook

We live in a time of profound paradox, especially when we consider the relationship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel. On the one hand, the very existence of a sovereign Jewish state, after two millennia of dispersion and powerlessness, is a miracle – a testament to an enduring hope and an unparalleled act of collective will. It is the culmination of generations of prayers and the defiant dream of return. For many, Israel represents the ultimate "improvement of position," a secure haven, a vibrant center of Jewish life, and a powerful voice for Jewish continuity.

Yet, this triumph also brings with it immense moral and practical complexities. A people once dispersed now wields state power, with all its inherent dilemmas. The dream of Zion, once an abstract ideal, is now a concrete reality, subject to the messy compromises of geopolitics, the burdens of governance, and the often-painful choices of self-defense. This shift from an imagined ideal to a lived reality has created profound tensions, both within the Jewish people and in the wider world. Where once we could project our highest aspirations onto a future state, now we must grapple with the actions of a real one, made up of real people, making real mistakes and facing intractable challenges.

This inherent tension – between the aspirational ideal and the imperfect reality, between the collective dream and the individual actions of a state – is precisely what our text today, a section from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, illuminates. Maimonides, the brilliant 12th-century codifier of Jewish law, offers us a deep dive into the concept of shlichut, or agency. While seemingly a dry legal discussion about selling property or handling debts, the principles he lays out are remarkably resonant when we consider the Jewish people as a "principal" and the State of Israel as its "agent."

How do we, the Jewish people, define the "instructions" for our collective agent? What happens when that agent, operating in a complex world, makes choices that we, the principal, might perceive as "impairing our position" rather than "improving it"? How do we hold an agent accountable, or even retract a mandate, when the very existence of that agent is tied to our deepest hopes for survival and flourishing? These are not questions for academics alone; they are existential questions for every Jew who cares about Israel, about Jewish values, and about the future of our people. This text invites us to engage with these questions, offering a framework to understand the responsibilities, the limitations, and the profound implications of collective action, reminding us that with great power comes not only great responsibility but also the perpetual need for introspection, ethical clarity, and courageous dialogue.

Text Snapshot

From Mishneh Torah, Agents and Partners 1:

"When a person tells a colleague: 'Go out and sell landed property for me,' ... All his deeds are binding."

"When an agent intentionally violates the instructions of his principal, his deeds are of no consequence. Similarly, if he erred even with regard to the slightest amount, the transaction... is nullified. For the principal can claim: 'I sent you to improve my position, not to impair it.'"

"When a person gives money to an agent to purchase landed property, and the agent purchases it for him without requiring the seller to accept financial responsibility... The agent must purchase the property... for himself. Then he must sell it to the principal and accept financial responsibility."

"Therefore, if the principal explicitly stipulates that he is appointing the agent in that capacity, whether he improves his position or impairs it, he may not retract, even if the agent sold a field worth 100 dinarim for a dinar for him, or purchased one worth a dinar for 100."

Context

Date

12th Century (circa 1170–1180 CE)

Actor

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam), universally known as Maimonides, the preeminent Sephardic Jewish philosopher, astronomer, and physician who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars and physicians in the Middle Ages.

Aim

Maimonides undertook the monumental task of compiling the Mishneh Torah (Repetition of the Torah), a comprehensive, systematically organized, and highly influential code of Jewish law. His aim was to distill the entire body of Jewish law—from the Torah, Mishnah, Talmud, and Geonic literature—into a single, lucid, and logical work, making it accessible to all Jews without needing to delve into the complexities of the Talmudic debates. In the section on Shlichut (Agency), his specific aim is to delineate the intricate legal framework governing the relationship between a principal and an agent, defining their mutual rights, responsibilities, and the conditions under which an agent's actions are binding or nullified. This section aims to provide clarity on the delegation of authority in civil matters, ensuring fairness and order in transactions involving representatives.

Two Readings

The legal principles of agency (shlichut) articulated by Maimonides offer a profound lens through which to examine the complex, often fraught, relationship between the Jewish people (the "principal") and the modern State of Israel (the "agent"). This is a metaphor, of course, but a powerful one, enabling us to explore the aspirations, responsibilities, and inevitable tensions that arise when a collective people establishes a political entity to act on its behalf.

Reading 1: The State as Agent – The Mandate and its Limits

In this reading, we consider the State of Israel as an "agent" created by the Jewish people to fulfill a historic mandate. The Jewish people, after millennia of statelessness, collectively decided to establish a sovereign entity – a state – to secure its future, gather its exiles, and express its national self-determination. The initial "instructions" to this agent were clear: establish a safe haven, foster Jewish culture and identity, and build a just society.

The Mishneh Torah begins by stating, "When a person tells a colleague: 'Go out and sell landed property for me,' ... All his deeds are binding." This immediately establishes the legitimacy and authority of the agent's actions. Once mandated, the State of Israel’s actions—its diplomatic agreements, its military decisions, its legislative processes—are, by and large, considered binding on the Jewish people, at least in the eyes of the world and in many internal contexts. The establishment of the state itself was an act of agency, and its subsequent operations carry the weight of that original mandate.

However, Maimonides quickly introduces crucial limitations: "When an agent intentionally violates the instructions of his principal, his deeds are of no consequence. Similarly, if he erred even with regard to the slightest amount, the transaction... is nullified. For the principal can claim: 'I sent you to improve my position, not to impair it.'" This is perhaps the most critical principle for our discussion. The underlying assumption of shlichut is that the agent acts for the benefit of the principal. The moment the agent deviates from instructions or makes an error, the principal has grounds to nullify the action because the agent was sent "to improve [the] position, not to impair it."

Translating this to the State of Israel, we can understand the Jewish people's collective expectation that the state will act in ways that advance their well-being, security, and moral standing. What constitutes "impairing" the people's position? This is where the complexities multiply. For some, certain military actions or policies towards Palestinians might be seen as impairing Israel's moral standing or international legitimacy, thereby impairing the position of the Jewish people globally. For others, a perceived deviation from religious law or socialist ideals might be seen as impairing the original Zionist vision. The "slightest amount" of error, which can nullify a transaction in Maimonides's law, underscores the high ethical bar. In statecraft, even small errors can have massive, long-lasting consequences, impacting generations and shaping geopolitical realities. When the state, as agent, makes a decision that arguably harms the principal's long-term interests or moral integrity, the principal (the Jewish people) is left grappling with the consequences.

The text further elaborates on a particularly salient scenario: "When a person gives money to an agent to purchase landed property, and the agent purchases it for him without requiring the seller to accept financial responsibility... The agent must purchase the property... for himself. Then he must sell it to the principal and accept financial responsibility." This is a powerful legal mechanism. If an agent makes a flawed transaction that exposes the principal to future loss (e.g., land expropriation), the agent is forced to personally bear the risk and then re-sell the property to the principal under better terms. In essence, the agent must internalize the cost of their poor judgment or deviation.

Applying this metaphorically, if the State of Israel, acting as agent, makes policies or enters into agreements that create long-term vulnerabilities, moral debts, or significant burdens for the Jewish people—whether in terms of security, economic stability, or ethical standing—who bears that cost? The Maimonidean principle suggests that the "agent" (the state, or perhaps its leadership at the time) should, in some sense, internalize these costs. This isn't a literal financial transaction, but it implies accountability. It raises questions about the responsibility of leaders for the long-term consequences of their decisions, and whether they are truly acting to "improve" the position of the principal. It demands a reckoning with the idea that the state's actions, if they create an "impaired position," do not simply vanish; their burden must be carried, and the agent who made the flawed deal must be held responsible.

The Ohr Sameach commentary on this text offers an additional layer of insight, stating that "שלוחו של אדם כמותו לא אמרינן אלא במידי דעשיה דאז ה"ל מעשה שלוחו כמותו, אבל במידי דליכא עשייה לא אמרינן שלוחו ש"א כמותו." (An agent is like the principal only in matters of action, where the agent's act is like the principal's act, but not in matters where there is no action). This implies that while the State's actions (e.g., military operations, legislative acts, diplomatic treaties) are binding and reflect upon the Jewish people, the State cannot fully embody the essence or identity of the principal. The State is a tool for action, but it doesn't fully encompass the entire peoplehood, its spiritual life, or its diverse expressions beyond the realm of action. This highlights the crucial distinction between the political entity and the broader, multifaceted Jewish collective, reinforcing that the people's identity and values are not wholly defined or exhausted by the State's existence.

This reading forces us to confront uncomfortable questions: Has the State, at times, "impaired" the Jewish people's position? Have its actions created future liabilities or moral compromises that the people must now bear? How do we, as the principal, exercise our right to nullify or demand accountability when the "agent" deviates from the highest instructions? This framework does not provide easy answers, but it provides a robust conceptual tool for critical, yet deeply engaged, reflection on the State of Israel's role and responsibility.

Reading 2: The People as Principal – Affirming Values and Redefining Mandate

In this second reading, we shift our focus from the agent's actions to the principal's ongoing responsibility: the Jewish people's role in defining, affirming, and even redefining the "mandate" given to the State of Israel. The relationship is not static; it requires constant engagement and ethical vigilance from the principal.

Maimonides offers a crucial clause: "Therefore, if the principal explicitly stipulates that he is appointing the agent in that capacity, whether he improves his position or impairs it, he may not retract, even if the agent sold a field worth 100 dinarim for a dinar for him, or purchased one worth a dinar for 100." This clause introduces the idea of explicit consent to risk. If the principal knowingly and explicitly agrees to allow the agent to act even if it "impairs" their position, then the principal is bound.

This is a powerful and potentially unsettling concept. Does the Jewish people, by virtue of creating and sustaining the State of Israel, implicitly or explicitly accept that the state will sometimes have to make difficult choices that might be seen as "impairing" the ideal position? Does the very act of statehood, with its inherent compromises, mean accepting that the "agent" might sometimes operate outside the purest, most idealistic instructions? This could be interpreted as a pragmatic acknowledgment of the realpolitik involved in maintaining a state: sometimes, securing survival or making peace requires decisions that are less than ideal, morally ambiguous, or even deeply painful. The ongoing support of the Jewish people for Israel, despite acknowledging its imperfections, could be seen as this "explicit stipulation" – a recognition that the benefits of statehood (security, self-determination) outweigh the occasional "impairment."

However, this clause also carries a warning: it obligates the principal only if the stipulation is explicit. This implies that the default expectation is "improvement," and any deviation must be consciously accepted. It means the Jewish people cannot be passive. We must continually articulate our mandate, our values, and our expectations for the State. If we fail to do so, and the agent acts in ways that impair our position, we might lack the grounds to complain if we haven't clearly stated our limits.

The Mishneh Torah further explores scenarios where the agent deviates from precise instructions: "When a person tells his agent: 'Sell a portion of my field large enough to sow a se'ah,' and he sells a portion large enough to sow two se'ah, the agent is considered to have added to the principal's instructions, and the purchaser acquires only an area large enough to sow one se'ah." And conversely: "If the principal told the agent: 'Sell a portion large enough to sow two se'ah,' and the agent sold only an area large enough to sow one se'ah, the agent is considered to have violated the principal's instructions, and the purchaser does not acquire anything."

These examples are incredibly illustrative. What are the "two se'ah" moments in Israeli history, where the state (agent) might have "added to the principal's instructions" – perhaps through overreach, expansion beyond an initial mandate, or actions that were not explicitly authorized by the broad consensus of the Jewish people? And what are the "one se'ah" moments, where the state "sold only an area large enough to sow one se'ah" when instructed to sell two – perhaps failing to pursue opportunities for peace, failing to fully protect certain populations, or falling short of its own foundational declarations of equality and justice? In both cases, the legal outcome is significant: the excess or the deficiency is nullified. This suggests that the Jewish people, as principal, retain the authority to reject actions that either exceed or fall short of the mandate. This is where internal debate, public protest, and democratic pressure come into play – they are the mechanisms by which the principal attempts to "nullify" or correct the agent's deviations.

Another crucial example: "If the principal told the agent: 'Sell my field to one person for me,' and the agent sold it to two people, the sale is nullified, for he violated the principal's instructions." This speaks to the danger of dividing the "field" – metaphorically, the vision for the state, its land, or its core identity. If the Jewish people's collective "instruction" was for a unified vision or a specific approach, and the state, through internal divisions or conflicting policies, effectively "sells it to two people" (i.e., pursues contradictory paths), the original intent can be nullified. This highlights the importance of internal cohesion and clarity of purpose for both the agent and the principal.

The Ohr Sameach commentary on shlichut in the context of mitzvot (commandments) adds an even deeper philosophical dimension to the principal's role: "דבמצות כוונת תורה שיאכלו כל ישראל פסח או מצה... א"כ אם יאכל אחד עבור חבירו הלא ימלא אחד כריסו עבור כל העולם ויתבטל מכוון התורה שכל ישראל יאכלו בעצמם." (In mitzvot, the Torah intends for all Israel to eat matzah... if one eats for another, then one person would fill his belly for the whole world, and the Torah's intention that all Israel should eat themselves would be nullified). This is a profound statement about the limits of agency in matters of existential or spiritual import. The State of Israel, as an agent, cannot "eat matzah" for the Jewish people. It cannot fulfill the spiritual, ethical, or personal responsibilities of each individual Jew or the collective Jewish soul. The principal (the Jewish people) cannot delegate its fundamental moral and spiritual obligations entirely to the agent. This means that while the state acts on behalf of the people in the political and security realms, the people retain an undeniable, active responsibility for upholding Jewish values, engaging in ethical deliberation, and ensuring that the state's actions align with the deepest moral currents of Jewish tradition.

This reading empowers the Jewish people. It reminds us that we are not passive recipients of the state's actions, but active participants in an ongoing covenant. We have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to define the mandate, to critique deviations, and to continually push the "agent" to fulfill its highest potential "to improve our position," not just materially, but morally and spiritually. It acknowledges the complexity and the often-painful reality that the principal must sometimes confront its own agent, not out of disloyalty, but out of a profound commitment to the shared enterprise.

Civic Move

The intricate dance between principal and agent, as described by Maimonides, provides a powerful framework for understanding the perennial tensions and responsibilities inherent in the relationship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel. To move from theoretical understanding to concrete action, fostering dialogue, learning, and potential repair, I propose the establishment of a Global Jewish Deliberative Forum on the Israeli Mandate.

A Global Jewish Deliberative Forum on the Israeli Mandate

The Action: This forum would be a standing, non-governmental, and ideologically diverse body tasked with periodically articulating and reviewing the "mandate" given by the Jewish people to the State of Israel. Its purpose is not to dictate policy to the Israeli government, but rather to serve as a vital, recognized platform for the Jewish people to collectively define their deepest aspirations, ethical red lines, and desired outcomes for their collective "agent."

Who Would Participate: The forum would be composed of delegates selected through a rigorous process designed to ensure demographic and ideological diversity across the global Jewish world. This would include:

• Geographic Representation: Delegates from Israel, North America, Europe, Latin America, Australia, and other significant Jewish communities.
• Denominational & Ideological Diversity: Representation from Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, secular, and other Jewish streams and political viewpoints.
• Professional & Social Backgrounds: Artists, academics, business leaders, social justice activists, youth leaders, educators, military veterans, and individuals from marginalized communities within the Jewish people.
• Experts: While primarily a deliberative body of the people, it would draw upon expert testimony from historians, political scientists, ethicists, and legal scholars (both Israeli and international) to inform its discussions.

How it Would Work (Mode & Minutes): The forum would convene in a structured, multi-stage process, perhaps annually or biennially, with intermediate virtual engagement.

• Stage 1: Learning & Context (3-6 months, virtual/hybrid): Participants would engage in shared learning modules covering:
  • Foundational Zionist texts and the Israeli Declaration of Independence.
  • Jewish ethical traditions and values (e.g., pikuach nefesh, tikkun olam, mishpat tzedek).
  • Key historical narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including diverse perspectives.
  • Contemporary challenges facing Israel and the Jewish people (security, social cohesion, democracy, diaspora relations).
  • Deep dive into the concept of shlichut and its application, using texts like the Mishneh Torah.
• Stage 2: Deliberation & Dialogue (1-2 intensive weeks, in-person): Delegates would gather for facilitated, in-depth discussions. The emphasis would be on empathetic listening, mutual understanding, and constructive disagreement, not just polemics. Key questions would include:
  • What are the core "instructions" we, the Jewish people, give to the State of Israel today?
  • What does "to improve our position" truly mean in the 21st century, considering both internal and external challenges?
  • Where have the State's actions, perhaps inadvertently, "impaired our position" or "violated instructions" in the past, and what lessons can be drawn?
  • What are the ethical boundaries and red lines that, if crossed, would constitute an "explicit impairment" that the principal cannot accept?
  • How can the State's actions better reflect the diverse values and aspirations of the global Jewish people?
• Stage 3: Articulation & Dissemination (2-3 months): The forum would produce a "Declaration of the People's Mandate" or a "Covenant of Shared Responsibility." This document would not be a policy paper, but rather a moral and ethical compass, articulating the collective Jewish people's aspirations and expectations for the State of Israel. It would highlight areas of consensus, acknowledge areas of tension, and offer a framework for ongoing engagement. This document would be widely published, translated, and disseminated to Jewish communities, Israeli leadership, and international bodies.

Connection to the Text and Purpose: This initiative directly addresses the core lessons of Maimonides's text:

• Defining the Mandate: It forces the "principal" (the Jewish people) to actively and explicitly define its "instructions" to the "agent" (the State of Israel), moving beyond implicit assumptions.
• Responding to Deviation/Error: By regularly reviewing the "mandate," the forum provides a mechanism to identify when the "agent" may have "erred" or "violated instructions," allowing for collective reflection and correction.
• Accepting Responsibility (and Risk): The process of deliberation inherently acknowledges the clause where the principal might "explicitly stipulate... whether he improves his position or impairs it." It encourages a conscious, collective decision about the acceptable risks and trade-offs of statehood, rather than a passive acceptance.
• Repair and Accountability: By fostering dialogue and identifying areas of concern, the forum creates a space for the Jewish people to acknowledge where "impairment" may have occurred and to collectively advocate for pathways to repair, both within Israel and in the broader Jewish world. It is the "principal" taking responsibility for the agent's actions, as the agent must in Maimonides's example of flawed land purchase.
• Transcending "Action": Rooted in the Ohr Sameach commentary, the forum recognizes that while the State's actions are binding, the Jewish people's identity and spiritual mandate cannot be fully delegated. The forum provides a platform for the people to express their essence, values, and ethical concerns beyond the realm of mere state action.

This civic move is an act of profound hope and responsibility. It acknowledges the complexity, the pain, and the pride of our relationship with Israel, and offers a structured path for the Jewish people to act as an engaged, ethical, and unified "principal" in shaping the future of its most profound collective achievement. It is about equipping ourselves with the moral clarity and collective will to ensure that our agent truly continues "to improve our position," in all its multifaceted dimensions.

Takeaway

The ancient legal concept of shlichut, or agency, as codified by Maimonides, offers a surprisingly potent and deeply relevant framework for understanding the profound and often challenging relationship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel. It forces us to move beyond simplistic narratives of either uncritical embrace or wholesale rejection, inviting us into a space of nuanced, responsible engagement.

We have explored the State of Israel as an "agent" tasked with a sacred mandate: to secure, protect, and foster the flourishing of the Jewish people. This agent's actions are binding, but they are also held to a high ethical standard, expected "to improve our position, not to impair it." When deviations or "errors" occur, the principal—the Jewish people—is called upon to reflect, to question, and to seek accountability. Simultaneously, we've considered the Jewish people as the "principal" with an ongoing, active responsibility to define and articulate the mandate, to set ethical boundaries, and to engage in continuous dialogue about what it means for our agent to truly serve our highest values. We cannot delegate our moral soul or spiritual obligations; these remain our own to uphold and embody.

This engagement is not easy. It requires a strong spine to face difficult truths and an open heart to listen to diverse perspectives, even those that challenge our preconceptions. But this candid, compassionate, and future-minded approach is precisely what is needed. The State of Israel is not merely a political entity; it is the living, breathing manifestation of an ancient people's renewed self-determination. As such, its ethical trajectory, its commitment to justice, and its embrace of democratic values are not peripheral concerns, but central to its legitimacy and to the enduring pride of the Jewish people worldwide.

Ultimately, the Mishneh Torah reminds us that the relationship between the Jewish people and the State of Israel is a dynamic covenant, not a static contract. It demands constant vigilance, ethical reflection, and courageous dialogue. By actively engaging as a thoughtful and responsible principal, we ensure that our agent continues to strive towards its highest purpose, securing a future that is not only safe and prosperous but also deeply resonant with the moral grandeur of our enduring peoplehood.