Responsum: On Dissolving a Business Partnership

Question: Reuben’s widow issued the following claim against Simeon’s widow:

The money of the partnership between us was in your possession. When we came to divide it up, you first took for yourself a litra [pound] of the money, and the rest you and I shared between us. Now I am suing you for that half a litra to which I am entitled.

This was the response of Simeon’s widow:

It is true that there was a partnership between your husband and me. I had many claims against him, and he likewise against me, until we came to court and were both deemed liable to take oaths. During the legal proceedings we came to a compromise, and he agreed to give me a litra of money. We performed a full act of acquisition regarding those claims, and he said to me as follows, “The money of the partnership is hereby in your possession; take two litra of money from the partnership money, or I will give you a litra of money of my own, from the coins in my possession.”

One of the witnesses to the compromise agreement attests that her statement is correct. Simeon’s widow continued:

After this compromise agreement, your husband Reuben bought silk for his own requirements, of which he gave me some in the value of half a litra of money. He subsequently set out on a journey, but for his sins he did not return. Since he let me decide on this matter—as he said to me, “Either you take two litra of money from the partnership or I will give you a litra of money of my own,” and thus I could have seized that money while he was still alive—I first took the litra of money, and the rest we divided equally.

Answer: It seems to me that the law favors the widow of Simeon, and that she has the advantage. She can take an oath herself regarding the compromise and the condition, that what she says is accurate, and then she is exempt; or she can make the other woman swear that she knows nothing of this compromise or the condition, and that she didn’t hear anything about this from her husband, in which case Simeon’s widow gives her half of the litra that she took in her presence. As for the half a litra of money that Reuben paid her in silk, and which his widow did not claim, she has no rights to it at all, as Simeon’s widow is believed in her claim that she took it for her debt. As we learned:

R. Joshua agrees in a case where someone says to another, “This field belonged to your father and I purchased it from him,” that he is believed, as “the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted.”¹ [m. Ketubbot 2:2; b. Ketubbot 15b]

And we further learned:

R. Yosi the priest and R. Zechariah son of the butcher testified about a young girl, that she was taken as a pledge for a debt. The members of her family distanced themselves from her, but her witnesses testified about her that she was not rendered forbidden and had not been defiled. The sages said to her family, “If you believe the witnesses [when they say] she was taken as a pledge for a debt, you must also believe them [when they say] she was not defiled and was not secluded with a man. And if you do not believe them that she was not defiled and was not secluded with a man, you should not believe them that she was taken as a pledge for a debt.” [m. Eduyyot 8:2; b. Ketubbot 26b]

The same logic applies here as well: If one accepts her claim that she took from him half a litra in silk, he must likewise agree that she took it for her debt; and if one does not believe that she took it for her debt, one has no reason to believe that he gave her anything, as there are no witnesses to the matter other than her own admission.