His Silence Is Deafening
‘One Seized It In Our Presence’
(Bava Metzia 6a)
Our daf refers to the mishnah (2a) which presents a case of two people appearing before beis din clutching two ends of a garment, each claiming that he found it first. The halacha is that the garment should be divided between the two of them (subsequent to their taking an oath).
The Gemara states, though, that if one of the litigants seizes the garment from the other while they are in beis din’s presence and the other remains silent, this silence is construed as an admission that the garment isn’t his (shetika k’hoda’a) and the garment is awarded to the one who seized it.
Delayed Reaction
R. Zera wonders what the halacha is if the aggrieved party waited a while before protesting. Should his initial silence be construed as an admission? Perhaps he kept quiet because he assumed that the aggressive action of his opponent would serve as sufficient reason for the members of the court to award him the garment. (R. Zera does not resolve his query.)
The Ins And Outs
The Ramban (Bava Metzia, ad loc.) writes that if the seizure took place outside beis din, the aggrieved party’s silence definitely constitutes an admission. The Rashba, however, disagrees and maintains that a person won’t bother to cry out in protest outside of beis din since such a cry would be pointless. In beis din, though, protesting would be effective; therefore, only in beis din is silence interpreted as an admission.