Commentary for Bava Metzia 11:10
בעי ר' זירא תקפה אחד בפנינו מהו
what is the law? But [it is immediately objected]: How could such a situation arise? If [the other litigant] remained silent, he really admitted [his opponent's claim]; and if he protested, what more could he do? — [R. Zera has in mind] a case where [the aggrieved litigant] was silent at first but protested later, and the question is: Do we say that since he was silent at first he really admitted [his opponent's claim], or [do we] perhaps [say] that, as he protests now, it has become apparent that the reason why he was silent at first is that he thought [it unnecessary to protest, because] the Rabbis [of the Court] saw [what happened]? — R. Nahman answered: Come and hear [a Baraitha]: The ruling [of our Mishnah] refers only to a case where both [litigants] hold [the garment], but if the garment is produced [in Court] by one of them only, then [we apply the principle that], 'the claimant must bring evidence to substantiate his claim.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.M. 1; v. supra 2b. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 11:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.