Mishneh Torah, Testimony 15

Hook

We stand at a crossroads where the fervent hope for a thriving, just Israel collides with the profound complexities of its present reality. How do we, as a people and as individuals, navigate the intricate web of our collective self-interest, historical narratives, and universal ethical imperatives? The challenge before us is to build a nation with a strong spine of identity and purpose, yet maintain an open heart capable of introspection, empathy, and the pursuit of justice for all. It's a journey that demands we ask: can we truly see clearly, judge fairly, and act justly, when our own communal "benefit" seems to be on the scales? This ancient text from Maimonides offers a startlingly contemporary lens through which to examine this enduring dilemma, pushing us to consider where our loyalties lie and how we ensure that our pursuit of nationhood is always anchored in the highest moral ground.

Text Snapshot

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Testimony 15: "Whenever a person will benefit from giving testimony, he may not give such testimony for it is as if he is testifying concerning himself... The following rules apply when a communal Torah scroll is stolen from the inhabitants of a city. Since it is intended to be listened to by all the members of the community, it is impossible for a person to withdraw his share of ownership from it. Hence, the matter should not be adjudicated by the judges of the city, and the inhabitants of the city may not testify to prove the city's ownership... Similar laws apply in all analogous situations."

Context

Date

Maimonides, or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam), lived from 1138 to 1204 CE. His life spanned a tumultuous yet intellectually vibrant period in the medieval world, primarily in al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) and later in Fustat (Old Cairo), Egypt. This was an era of significant cultural exchange, particularly between Jewish, Islamic, and Christian civilizations. Maimonides himself was deeply immersed in the philosophical traditions of his time, especially Aristotelian thought, which he masterfully integrated into his understanding and codification of Jewish law and theology. His magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, was completed around 1177 CE, a monumental undertaking that sought to synthesize the entirety of Jewish law from the Torah and Talmud into a single, logically structured, and accessible work. This was a revolutionary act, as no one before him had attempted such a comprehensive codification. He lived through the Almohad persecution in Spain, forcing him and his family to flee, eventually settling in Egypt where he became a prominent physician to the vizier and sultan Saladin, alongside his prolific scholarly and communal leadership. This personal experience of displacement and engagement with diverse cultures undoubtedly shaped his profound insights into law, ethics, and human nature.

Actor

The actor here is Maimonides himself, the singular intellectual giant whose influence on Jewish thought is arguably second only to the authors of the Talmud. His project, the Mishneh Torah (literally "Repetition of the Torah" or "Second Torah"), was an audacious attempt to create a definitive, systematic, and comprehensive code of Jewish law. Before Maimonides, Jewish law was primarily accessed through the vast and often labyrinthine discussions of the Talmud, followed by various commentaries and responsa. Rambam's aim was to distill this immense body of knowledge into a clear, concise, and logically organized system, making it accessible to all Jews, regardless of their scholarly background. He sought to present Halakha (Jewish law) not merely as a collection of disparate rules but as an interconnected, rational, and divinely ordained system designed to create a just and holy society. His approach was deeply philosophical, seeing Halakha as the practical application of divine wisdom, aimed at perfecting both the individual and the collective. He believed that understanding the "reasons for the mitzvot" (ta'amei ha-mitzvot) was crucial for their proper observance and for internalizing their ethical spirit. His work, therefore, is not just a legal code but a profound statement on Jewish theology, ethics, and the ideal human society.

Aim

Maimonides' primary aim in Mishneh Torah, particularly in sections like Testimony 15, was to establish an unassailable foundation for justice within the Jewish legal system. The core principle articulated here – "a person may not testify concerning himself" (אין אדם מעיד על עצמו) – is fundamental to ensuring impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings. By systematically outlining scenarios where an individual's personal interest, however subtle, might compromise their objectivity, Maimonides sought to eliminate conflicts of interest. His goal was to create a legal framework where judgments are rendered solely on the merits of the case, free from bias, personal gain, or communal pressure.

This pursuit of impartiality was not merely an abstract legal exercise; it was deeply rooted in his vision for a just society, a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation." For Maimonides, the meticulous application of Halakha was the path to human perfection and the realization of God's will in the world. A system that allowed for biased testimony or judgment would undermine the very fabric of justice and erode public trust in the law. The detailed examples in Testimony 15, from communal bathhouses and Torah scrolls to sharecroppers and guarantors, illustrate the pervasive nature of potential conflicts of interest in everyday life and the rigorous measures required to safeguard judicial integrity. The implication is clear: true justice demands that we, as individuals and as a community, constantly scrutinize our motivations and remove any impediment to objective truth. This ancient pursuit of pure justice resonates powerfully when applied to the aspirations and challenges of a modern state like Israel, which strives to embody both its particularistic identity and universal ethical principles.

Two Readings

Reading 1: The Ideal of Impartial Justice in a Sovereign State

Maimonides' rigorous articulation of the principle "a person may not testify concerning himself" (אין אדם מעיד על עצמו) in Mishneh Torah, Testimony 15, offers a profound and foundational blueprint for the establishment and ethical maintenance of any just society, including a modern, sovereign nation-state like Israel. This reading posits that the Zionist project, in its highest aspirations, implicitly or explicitly seeks to actualize these Maimonidean ideals of impartiality, transparency, and the elimination of conflicts of interest in its governance, judiciary, and public life. It argues that a nation-state, particularly one founded on high moral principles and a prophetic tradition of justice, must continually strive to transcend its collective self-interest in favor of universal ethical standards, ensuring that its actions are beyond reproach, both internally and on the global stage.

At its heart, this reading sees Maimonides' text as a timeless call for ethical governance. Just as an individual cannot testify for their own benefit, a state, or its constituent bodies, cannot be the sole arbiter of its own justice when its own interests are directly involved. The examples Maimonides provides – from the communal bathhouse or thoroughfare, where "none of the inhabitants of the city can testify regarding this matter nor serve as a judge" until they divest their interest, to the stolen communal Torah scroll, where "it is impossible for a person to withdraw his share of ownership" and thus the city's judges cannot adjudicate – serve as powerful metaphors for national assets, shared civic spaces, and the very essence of collective identity.

A state, much like a city, holds vast communal property and shared resources – land, infrastructure, public services, and even national narratives. If the "inhabitants of the city" (read: the citizens or the governing bodies) are always testifying for their own benefit, or judging matters in which they have an inherent, non-removable stake, then true justice becomes impossible. Modern democratic states, including Israel, are built upon the separation of powers precisely to introduce checks and balances that mirror this Maimonidean principle. An independent judiciary, a vigilant free press, and robust oversight mechanisms are all institutional attempts to ensure that the legislative and executive branches, which inherently represent the collective self-interest of the ruling majority, are held accountable to a higher standard of impartiality.

For Zionism, which aimed not merely to establish a refuge but to build an exemplary society, a "light unto the nations," these principles are paramount. Early Zionist thinkers often envisioned a state rooted in socialist ideals of equality and justice, or religious ideals of a Torah-based society, both of which demand the highest ethical standards. This reading contends that Israel, in its journey towards maturity, must constantly reflect on whether its actions, laws, and policies genuinely embody this impartial pursuit of justice. When policies regarding land allocation, resource distribution, security measures, or even the definition of citizenship are perceived to be driven by the "benefit" of one particular group or collective self-interest without adequate consideration for all inhabitants or affected parties, the Maimonidean principle is challenged.

The "communal Torah scroll" example is particularly poignant. Maimonides notes that because it is "intended to be listened to by all the members of the community" and "it is impossible for a person to withdraw his share of ownership from it," the city's judges and inhabitants cannot testify regarding its ownership. This highlights a category of collective interest so fundamental, so entwined with identity, that complete detachment is impossible. In a modern national context, this could be analogized to foundational aspects of national identity, security, or historical claims. How does a nation, whose very existence is a testament to its people's struggle and unique narrative, ensure impartiality when these foundational elements are contested?

This reading argues that the solution, while not allowing for complete "withdrawal" from one's national identity, demands an internalized ethical imperative for impartiality. It calls for robust civic education, a culture of public service that prioritizes universal justice over narrow group interests, and a constant, courageous self-critique. It implies that for Israel to truly flourish and fulfill its ethical potential, it must actively seek out and amplify voices that challenge its perceived collective self-interest, even when those voices are unpopular. It means fostering an environment where ethical considerations are not merely an afterthought but are woven into the very fabric of decision-making, from the smallest municipal council to the highest court.

Ultimately, this Maimonidean framework challenges Zionism to evolve beyond mere survival and self-preservation to a higher moral plane. It demands that the Jewish state, born of a people's yearning for justice, consistently demonstrate that its sovereignty is exercised with fairness, equity, and a profound commitment to the human dignity of all its inhabitants, regardless of their background or affiliation. It's a call to build a state whose pursuit of its own "benefit" is always tempered by an unwavering devotion to the principles of impartial justice that Maimonides so meticulously codified. This ethical rigor, rather than weakening the state, would ultimately strengthen its moral legitimacy and ensure its enduring place among the nations as a true "light."

Reading 2: The Complexities of Collective Identity and Inherited Responsibility

While the first reading emphasizes the aspirational ideal of impartiality, this second reading delves into the inherent complexities and tensions that arise when Maimonides' legal principles of "self-interest" are applied to the deeply intertwined realities of collective identity, historical narratives, and national self-determination, particularly within the context of Zionism and modern Israel. It acknowledges that for a people seeking sovereignty after millennia of statelessness, the concept of "benefit" extends far beyond individual financial gain to encompass existential security, cultural continuity, and the fulfillment of a deeply held historical and religious narrative. This perspective understands that some "interests" are so fundamental to a collective's identity and survival that Maimonides' examples of "impossibility to withdraw" become central to the modern dilemma.

The Mishneh Torah states that when a "communal Torah scroll is stolen," it's impossible for a person "to withdraw his share of ownership from it," and therefore the city's judges and inhabitants cannot testify. Steinsaltz's commentary clarifies, "For he needs to hear the reading from it." This isn't about financial ownership alone; it's about an indispensable spiritual and communal necessity. This particular clause provides a powerful lens through which to understand the unique challenges of the Zionist project. For the Jewish people, the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, and the very concept of a Jewish state are, in many ways, analogous to that communal Torah scroll. They are not merely assets to be owned or litigated; they are intrinsically tied to the people's identity, their historical narrative, their spiritual yearning, and their collective survival. How does a people "withdraw their share of ownership" or "benefit" from something so existentially vital?

This reading acknowledges that the Jewish people, by virtue of their history, their covenantal relationship with the land, and their experience of persecution, are inherently "interested parties" in the narrative and future of Israel. Their "self-interest" is not a flaw to be overcome but a fundamental aspect of their collective being. This "benefit" is multifaceted: it includes physical security and refuge, the flourishing of Jewish culture and language, the self-determination of a persecuted people, and the realization of ancient prophecies. When the state of Israel faces challenges, whether from external threats or internal disputes, the "inhabitants of the city" – the Jewish people, both in Israel and the diaspora – are inextricably linked to its fate. Their emotional, historical, and often spiritual "benefit" is profoundly tied to the state's well-being.

The complexity arises when this deeply rooted collective self-interest interacts with the universal demands of justice and the rights and narratives of other peoples, particularly the Palestinians, who also have profound historical and emotional ties to the same land. If Maimonides argues that one cannot judge or testify when one benefits, how can a sovereign Jewish state, or the Jewish people globally, navigate situations where its perceived "benefit" (e.g., security, territorial claims, demographic balance) comes into direct tension with the rights or narratives of others? The text does not offer a simple answer, but it forces us to confront this tension head-on.

This reading suggests that while complete "withdrawal" from the collective "benefit" of national self-determination may be impossible and perhaps undesirable for the Jewish people, Maimonides' principles still demand a rigorous process of ethical discernment. If we cannot withdraw our share, then the text implies that "the matter should not be adjudicated by the judges of the city." In a modern national context, this could mean that certain core disputes, especially those involving historical narratives, land rights, or national identity, cannot be resolved solely by the internal judicial or political mechanisms of one party. It hints at the need for external arbitration, international law, or at least profoundly robust internal mechanisms that actively seek to incorporate and validate the perspectives of those whose interests might be in conflict with the state's dominant narrative.

Furthermore, the Maimonidean text implicitly calls for an acute awareness of our own biases. Even if we cannot "withdraw our share," we must acknowledge that our perspective is shaped by our collective "benefit." This requires a profound exercise in empathy and intellectual humility. It means actively listening to the "testimony" of others, understanding their "benefit" and their "harm," and recognizing that our own historical narratives, while deeply true and meaningful to us, may not encompass the full truth for everyone. This is the "complexity" of being pro-Israel: holding fast to the legitimate aspirations and achievements of the Jewish state while simultaneously grappling with the ethical dilemmas, the historical costs, and the ongoing human consequences that have arisen from its establishment and growth in a contested land.

This reading doesn't seek to undermine Zionism but to mature it. It suggests that true strength and moral legitimacy for Israel will come not from denying its collective self-interest, but from understanding it, acknowledging its inherent biases, and then, with an "open heart," actively working to mitigate its potential for injustice. It means seeking justice not just for Israel, but within Israel and through Israel's actions towards all people. The "strong spine" of Jewish peoplehood and self-determination must be paired with the "open heart" that allows for profound self-reflection, even when it means confronting uncomfortable truths about our own collective "benefit" and its impact on others. This is the ongoing, challenging work of a nation striving to live up to its highest ethical calling, understanding that some "shares of ownership" are impossible to withdraw, but the responsibility to act justly remains paramount.

Civic Move

Establishing a "Covenant of Shared Future" Commission

Inspired by Maimonides' meticulous concern for impartiality and the complex interplay of individual and collective "benefit," I propose the establishment of a "Covenant of Shared Future" Commission. This initiative aims to foster dialogue, learning, and repair by providing a structured, ethically grounded platform for diverse Israeli communities—Jewish, Arab, Druze, Bedouin, and others—to collectively examine issues of shared national interest, historical narratives, and future aspirations, while actively acknowledging and navigating inherent "conflicts of interest" and collective "benefits" that shape different perspectives.

Goal and Rationale

The primary goal is not to re-litigate the past in a zero-sum game, but to build a foundation for a more equitable and just future by fostering mutual understanding, empathy, and shared responsibility. Maimonides' text teaches us that when collective "benefit" is at stake, direct adjudication by interested parties is problematic. For a nation like Israel, where the very definition of "self" (the Jewish people) is foundational to the state, and where there are significant and legitimate "others" whose interests and narratives are often in tension, creating a mechanism to transcend these inherent biases is crucial. This commission seeks to be that mechanism, allowing for "testimony" and "judgment" that approaches Maimonidean impartiality as closely as humanly possible, even when complete detachment is recognized as impossible.

Structure and Methodology

1. Framework Development (Maimonidean Lens):

   • A core working group, comprising legal scholars, ethicists, historians, and community leaders (Jewish and Arab, secular and religious), would collaboratively develop a "Covenant of Shared Future" framework. This framework would explicitly acknowledge Maimonides' principle of "no person testifies concerning himself" and apply it to collective "self-interest."
   • It would define "collective benefit" in the Israeli context, recognizing that for Jewish Israelis, this includes national self-determination, security, and cultural flourishing, while for Palestinian citizens of Israel, it includes equal rights, cultural recognition, and justice for historical grievances. The framework would articulate the ethical imperative to understand how each group's "benefit" may unintentionally impact or conflict with the "benefit" of others.

2. Impartial Facilitation and Expertise (Removing the "Benefit"):

   • The Commission would be led by a diverse, internationally recognized, and highly respected panel of non-Israeli experts in conflict resolution, human rights, and constitutional law, alongside a select few highly respected Israeli public figures known for their impartiality and moral courage. This external and internally credible leadership aims to simulate the "removal of self-interest" that Maimonides demands, providing a perceived neutral ground for difficult conversations.
   • Sub-committees would be formed, each focusing on a specific thematic area (e.g., land and resources, historical narratives in education, civic identity and symbols, security and individual rights, religious pluralism). Each sub-committee would have balanced representation from all major demographic groups in Israel.

3. Ethical Case Studies and "Shared Torah Scroll" Dialogues:

   • Utilizing Maimonides' text as a springboard, the Commission would develop a curriculum of "ethical case studies" drawn from Israeli history and contemporary life. For instance:
     • Communal Bathhouse/Thoroughfare: Discussions around the equitable distribution of public resources, urban planning, and infrastructure development in mixed cities or between different communities. How do we ensure that decisions about public goods are not biased towards the perceived "benefit" of one group?
     • Communal Torah Scroll: This powerful metaphor would be used to discuss shared national symbols, historical sites (e.g., Jerusalem), and foundational narratives. If these are "impossible to withdraw one's share from," how do we ensure their governance and interpretation acknowledge and respect the deep, legitimate connections of all groups, even when those connections are conflicting? This would involve deep dives into historical narratives from multiple perspectives, allowing participants to understand the "necessity" (as Steinsaltz says for the Torah scroll) that these elements represent for different groups.
     • Charity for the Poor: Debates on social welfare policies, affirmative action, and economic disparities, ensuring that aid and opportunities are distributed justly, without being perceived as benefiting one's own "poor" at the expense of others.
   • These case studies would form the basis of structured dialogues, facilitated by trained professionals, where participants are encouraged to articulate their perspectives, not as absolute truths, but as "testimonies" shaped by their collective "benefit" and experiences. The goal is to move beyond mere advocacy to empathetic understanding of the other's legitimate "stake."

4. Storytelling and Narrative Pluralism:

   • The Commission would create dedicated platforms—both digital and in-person—for individuals and communities to share their personal and collective narratives, historical experiences, and visions for the future. This "testimony" would be recorded and archived, forming a national repository of diverse perspectives, allowing for a richer, more nuanced understanding of Israeli society. The emphasis would be on listening and acknowledging, rather than debating or refuting.

5. Policy Recommendations for a "Covenant of Shared Future":

   • Based on the dialogues and findings, the sub-committees would formulate concrete, actionable policy recommendations for ethical governance, legal reforms, educational curricula, and civic initiatives. These recommendations would explicitly aim to mitigate conflicts of interest, promote equitable resource allocation, foster inclusive civic identity, and institutionalize mechanisms for ongoing inter-communal dialogue and dispute resolution that transcend narrow group "benefits."
   • Examples might include: proposals for an "equality clause" in basic laws, guidelines for teaching multiple narratives in schools, ethical frameworks for security decisions that balance collective security with individual rights, and mechanisms for joint municipal planning in mixed areas.

Potential Partners

• Academic Institutions: Israeli universities (e.g., Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, Haifa University, Ben-Gurion University), particularly their law, history, political science, and philosophy departments, for research, curriculum development, and expert input.
• NGOs & Civil Society: Organizations dedicated to shared society (e.g., Abraham Initiatives, Givat Haviva, Hand in Hand Schools), human rights (e.g., ACRI, B'Tselem), and interfaith dialogue (e.g., Interfaith Encounter Association, Rossing Center).
• International Bodies: UN agencies, peacebuilding organizations, and academic institutions with expertise in post-conflict reconciliation and democratic institution-building, to provide external expertise and legitimacy.
• Governmental & Quasi-Governmental Bodies: Knesset committees, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Justice, and the President's Residence could be invited to engage with the Commission's findings and recommendations, ensuring potential pathways for implementation.
• Philanthropic Foundations: Both Israeli and international foundations would be critical for funding and sustaining the multi-year effort.

Desired Outcomes

The "Covenant of Shared Future" Commission seeks to cultivate a more resilient, just, and morally sound Israeli society. By consciously engaging with Maimonides' principles of impartiality, even when navigating profound collective "benefits," it aims to:

1. Deepen Mutual Understanding: Foster empathy and reduce polarization by allowing diverse groups to genuinely hear and acknowledge each other's historical experiences and legitimate concerns.
2. Strengthen Democratic Institutions: Promote ethical governance and judicial integrity by offering frameworks to identify and mitigate collective conflicts of interest.
3. Cultivate Shared Responsibility: Encourage a sense of collective ownership over the challenges and future of the state, transcending narrow group interests.
4. Lay Groundwork for Repair: Identify areas where historical injustices or ongoing disparities exist and propose pathways for meaningful repair and reconciliation, building trust for a more equitable future.
5. Reaffirm Israel's Moral Purpose: Demonstrate that the Zionist vision of a Jewish, democratic state can and must uphold universal ethical principles, even amidst the complexities of national self-determination.

This Civic Move is an ambitious undertaking, but it is precisely the kind of courageous, self-reflective work that Maimonides' text, when viewed through a "pro-Israel with complexity" lens, demands of a mature nation striving for both sovereignty and sanctity.

Takeaway

The ancient wisdom of Maimonides, particularly his unwavering demand for impartiality in Testimony 15, offers a profound and challenging mirror for modern Zionism and the State of Israel. It compels us to confront the uncomfortable truth that our deepest collective "benefit"—whether it's the security of our people, the continuity of our culture, or the fulfillment of our historical narrative—can, if left unexamined, create blind spots that impede justice for others. The "strong spine" of Jewish peoplehood and the vital necessity of a sovereign state must be animated by an "open heart" that constantly scrutinizes its own motives, acknowledges its inherent biases, and actively seeks to transcend them in pursuit of universal justice.

The "impossible to withdraw" nature of our connection to essential communal elements, like the Torah scroll, reminds us that certain aspects of our identity and national purpose are non-negotiable. Yet, this very inescapability places an even greater responsibility on us. If we cannot fully detach, then we must, with utmost integrity, create robust mechanisms—like the proposed "Covenant of Shared Future" Commission—to ensure that our collective "testimony" and "judgment" are balanced, empathetic, and ultimately, just. This is the ongoing work of building a nation that is not only strong and secure but also morally exemplary; a nation whose deep roots in its own tradition empower it to reach for the highest ethical standards, ensuring that its "benefit" contributes to the flourishing of all. Only then can Israel truly fulfill its promise as a light unto the nations, embodying both its unique destiny and its universal moral calling.