wished to transact personally, he would be unable to do so; so the agent is even less able to do so. This may occur when a person suffers an accident that impairs his thinking. We then say: the agency has been terminated, and we say to the one appointed to sell: “Do not sell, for the agency has been terminated.” If the principal himself cannot transact should he wish to do so, then what of his representative, the agent?

Thus, the term safah (incompetence) relates to the intellect: a person may suffer insanity or poor judgment, such that his thinking and reason become impaired and he begins not to understand anything.

Does an interdiction on account of insolvency terminate the agency or not?

There is further detail: if it concerns specific assets belonging to the principal, the agency is terminated; but if it concerns his liability, the agency is not terminated.

As for the agent, if he is placed under interdiction on account of insolvency, the agency is not terminated thereby, because his transactions involving another person’s property remain valid. Thus, if the agent is placed under interdiction on account of insolvency, the agency is unaffected and is not terminated. In the case of the principal, however, there is further detail.

An example concerning the agent: a person appoints someone to sell his house, and then that agent becomes indebted such that his debts exceed his assets, so he is placed under interdiction. The agent is now unable to sell anything from his own property because he is under interdiction. But may he sell the house of the one who appointed him?

The answer is yes, because one placed under interdiction on account of insolvency is restricted only with respect to his own specific assets, not the specific assets of others. Thus, the agency remains in effect.

An example concerning the principal: he says, “I appoint you as my agent to sell my house,” and then—