In the case (Rabbi Zeira) where two people come holding on to the item and one of them grabs it from the other before Beis Din, suppose the one grabbed from knows that he has witnesses (like the case where he has witnesses but they are far away) and can meet the standard of the one who wants to take something away from his peer must bring proof.
If he knows that his witnesses will be available very soon, is that a valid reason why he might be silent over the grab?
He could protest and get back to the point where is he presumed to have half, but even more than the usual case, he wants to get all of it.
If it is a valid reason for being silent, I think it would fit very well with the next piece (Rav Nachman) that he needs proof to get all of it.
But this reason doesn't seem to have come up in the commentaries I've heard discussed, and there seems to even be a question if we would allow him to bring any proof after his presumed admission by his silence.
Chaim Chesler
Dear Chaim,
If he is quiet from the beginning to the end, all the commentators learn that this is definite admission, and therefore bringing witnesses later is worthless, since he himself admitted and that's worth 100 witnesses.
It seems that in court you can't keep quiet in such a situation. At least tell the court what you hope and want!
When there was first quiet and after that objection, then later witnesses are accepted according to the Taz, Nesivos, and Gra (as opposed to the Shach) since the witnesses are definite proof and his Shosek is only a doubtful admitting.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner
Please consider 2 scenarios and their likely outcoms:
1) He expects witnesses to come any second - they have said "We're coming today!".
2) He knows that he will get half even without witnesses, but he wants it all.
First scenario:
He speaks up to the court ahead of time saying 2 witnesses that prove its all mine are coming. They fail to show. Is he now worse off that his statement that he said they are coming didn't come through? Does he still end up with half?
Second scenario:
He doesn't want other to think that he counts chickens before they hatch, and says nothing about his expected witnesses. He is silent because he expects them to come. Even his silence is seen as a "doubtful admission", is he allowed to bring the proof of his witnesses when they arrive? Does his proof of 2 valid witnesses always override the presumptive admission of his silence?
Chaim Chesler
First: Someone who is a proven liar loses his chance to claim. However, saying that witnesses will come today does not make a person a proven liar. There can be many reasons why they never came. So he still gets half.
Second: We already wrote that he must speak up in court, and if not, his silence is definite admission and witnesses will not be accepted any more. Only if in court, after being silent he did speak up, then we have the Machlokes of the Taz etc. vs. the Shach whether witnesses will be accepted later.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner