Responsum: On a Loan Made to a Woman

Responsum 115

I was asked about the following case: Reuben sued the wife of Simeon on account of a deposit he left in her possession, and she was ruled liable for both repayment and an oath. Now Simeon claims that anything a wife acquires belongs to her husband [see, e.g., b. Gittin 77a], and that she does not need to pay the debt, as women are a source of misfortune to those who have legal proceedings against them. Nor does he want her to take an oath and be demeaned by going to court, in accordance with R. Eliezer, who said that a man does not want his wife to be demeaned by going to court [see b. Ketubbot 74b].

In my opinion, Simeon’s claims can be disregarded. Regarding the mishnaic teaching that “slaves and women are a source of misfortune” [m. Bava Kamma 8:4], this means only that they are exempt for an injury that they inflict upon others. [ . . . ] We do not render a husband liable to pay for his wife’s damages, as what has it got to do with him? She is the guilty party and the one who is held liable, as scripture equates a woman to a man regarding all legal cases of the Torah [see, e.g., Numbers 5:6]. [ . . . ] She is exempt only while she owns no property, but when she comes into possession of assets of her own, e.g., when she is divorced, she becomes liable [ . . . ]. In any case, if someone entrusted a deposit to a married woman, or lent her money, her husband cannot say, “It belongs to me, as anything my wife acquires belongs to me,” and then proceed to benefit from the property at his pleasure, to the detriment of the other. God forbid; may such a suggestion be forgotten and never be uttered! For who gave her the acquisition of the deposit or loan that her husband can acquire it from her?

Therefore, if there are witnesses to affirm that Reuben deposited the property with Simeon’s wife, or lent her money, or if she admitted to this in court, and she claims that she was negligent regarding the deposit, or that she threw it into the river, Simeon is certainly exempt. For there is no greater injury than this, as what difference does it make whether she injured him bodily or financially? However, if she contends that she consumed it, or spent it for her own needs, it seems to me that the husband must pay on her behalf, as all wives nowadays are stewards with regard to their husbands’ property. [ . . . ] Therefore, she is considered his agent regarding any business she conducts, and consequently if she consumed or spent the deposit she acted as the husband’s agent and he is obligated to pay. [ . . . ]

As for Simeon’s claim that “I do not want my wife to be demeaned and to take an oath,” who says that the law is in accordance with R. Eliezer? Perhaps the law is in accordance with R. Meir, who says that a man is willing for his wife to be demeaned. Even if you say that the law is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who says that taking an oath is demeaning? [ . . . ] Consequently, Simeon’s claim can be entirely rejected. [ . . . ] This is even more relevant nowadays, when women work as stewards or as storekeepers, conduct transactions, take out loans, lend money, repay and collect debts, accept deposits, and entrust deposits with others. If you say that women do not take oaths on their business dealings, you would not be giving anyone a chance, as all would refrain from engaging in transactions with them. In order to ensure the smooth running of the market, adjustments of this kind ought to be made so that people will not refrain from dealing with women. Indeed, we find in several cases that the sages were concerned about the smooth running of the market. Consequently, even if according to the letter of the law she cannot be compelled to take an oath, she should have to take an oath anyway, in order to ensure the smooth running of the market.