How long is the window of opportunity? TB Baba Metzia 6

There is a halakhic principle that silence means acquiescence (שתיקה כהודאה דמי). On today’s daf TB Baba Metzia 6, Rabbi Zeira asks the question when does the window of opportunity close for somebody to remain silent before applying the above principle.

Ҥ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: If two people together had a garment in their grasp and one of them seized it in its entirety from the grasp of the other in our presence, i.e., before the court, what is the halakha?

“The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the one from whom it was seized remained silent, his silence indicates that he admits to the one who seized it from him that he is the owner. And if he shouted in protest at the seizure, what more should he have done? The fact that the other person is stronger than him is irrelevant as far as determining legal ownership of the garment is concerned.

“The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to raise this dilemma in a case where he was silent initially (מֵעִיקָּרָא), when the other litigant seized the garment, and he later shouted (בסוף). What is the halakha? Is there an assumption that since he was initially silent, he admitted to the one who seized it from him that in seizing it the litigant became the owner, and it was only later that he regretted doing so and shouted? Or perhaps, since he is shouting now about the injustice that was done to him, the matter is revealed that the fact that he was silent initially was because he thought: The Rabbis of the court saw him grab it from me, so there is no need to cry out.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Rishonim disagree what is the window of opportunity between being silent initially and later shouting the cloak was his.

Ritba defines the time of מֵעִיקָּרָא when both have grabbed the cloak and are holding onto it. He defines the time of בסוף when one lets go of the cloak because the other took it by force. In other words, מֵעִיקָּרָא is when the struggle begins and בסוף is when it ends.

Raah defines the time of מֵעִיקָּרָא when the struggle begins and defines the time of בסוף when they are still tussling.

Rashba agrees with the Ritba concerning the initial time of מֵעִיקָּרָא; however, expands the window of opportunity of בסוף of when the two parties are in front of the court.

All the above Rishonim assume that the people are now in front of the court. What happens were not from the court, but only in front of two witnesses.

The Ritba and Ramban  holds that there can be no lapse of time between when the first party grabs the cloak away from the second party and the time he screams out something to effect “What are you doing? It’s mine.” If he is quiet then we assume silence means acquiescence (שתיקה כהודאה דמי) and the cloak belongs to the first party.

Rashba says the opposite. The person doesn’t scream out when he loses this tug-of-war over the cloak because he knows he has to make a claim in front of the court. Screaming at this juncture would have no effect.