How can silence in the face of an accusatory claim be presumed to be an admission?
Even more so if its in the face of a sequence of conflicting claims where each claim provides an alibi or refutation of the prior claim?
Is a person with a false claim charged against him presumed innocent until proven guilty? if so why is there an obligation to speak out against a claim, if the weight of the claim has been equaled by the next unproven claim?
Robert
A person who is silent in the face of an accusatory claim can definitely be presumed to admit to that claim, especially when he is in Beis Din (there are arguments in various Gemaras concerning whether or not this principle applies outside of Beis Din, or whether outside of Beis Din a person does not think that his answer makes a difference). Everyone knows that Beis Din is a place where one must state his claim. If one has nothing to say, this means he presumably admits to what was said. If one did not know if the claim was true, and certainly if he did know, he must speak up and say that he is unsure or that it is not true! This is what people usually do when faced with someone who is trying to take away their money. However, if the person already refuted the claim, he does not have to maintain a childish shouting match with the other party who keeps stating the claim over and over again.
Not only is a person with a false claim against him not presumed guilty, but even people with a regular claim are presumed innocent until they do something to show their guilt. There are certain exceptions, such as a Shevuas Heses, which is an oath that someone must take when he is accused of owing money (even though the defendant denies it), as people do not usually bother to bring someone to Beis Din for no reason. However, he is able to take the oath and not pay a cent.
Take Care,
Yaakov Montrose