Plotting Witnesses and the Legal Reach of a Person's Hand

Plotting witnesses [who were proven false] are not sold as a Hebrew bondman. What is the reason? Rava said: "for his theft" (Exodus 22:2) - and not for the muzzling penalty of false witnesses. "If the stolen item is actually found in his hand" (Exodus 22:3): I would know only his hand; from where do I learn his roof, his courtyard, and his enclosure? Scripture therefore teaches, "if it is actually found in his hand" - in any case. And it has likewise been taught: "And he writes her a bill of divorce and places it in her hand" (Deuteronomy 24:1) - I would know only her hand; from where do I learn her roof, her courtyard, and her enclosure? Scripture therefore teaches, "and places it in her hand" - in any case. And both verses are necessary. For had Scripture taught us only the divorce case, I might have said it is because she is divorced against her will, but as for the thief, say no. And had it taught us only the thief, I might have said it is because of the penalty, but as for divorce, say no. Therefore both are necessary. As for her courtyard - whatever a woman acquires, her husband acquires. The case is where he writes to her while she is still betrothed: "I have no claim or dispute upon your property," in accordance with Rav Huna's teaching that an inheritance coming to a person from another source - a person may stipulate concerning it that he shall not inherit it. Rava said: Is it so that the husband does not acquire her hand? Rather, her bill of divorce and her hand come as one [the divorce takes effect at the instant the hand ceases to be his]; so too her bill of divorce and her courtyard come as one. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said in the name of Abba Kohen Bardela: A minor girl has no [legal acquiring] courtyard and has no four cubits. And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yannai: She has a courtyard and she has four cubits. One master holds: the courtyard's power was derived from the hand, and just as she has a hand, she also has a courtyard. And one master holds: the courtyard's power was derived from agency, and just as she has no agency, she also has no courtyard. But is there one who holds that the courtyard was derived from agency? Has it not been taught, "his hand - I would know only his hand," and so on? And if it enters your mind that the courtyard was derived from agency, then we would have found an agent for a matter of transgression, whereas we hold that there is no agency for a matter of transgression. Ravina said: Where do we say there is no agency for transgression? Where the agent is himself subject to liability. But a courtyard, which is not subject to liability, makes the one who sent it liable. Rav Sama said: Where do we say there is no agency for transgression? Where, if the agent wishes he acts and if he wishes he does not act. But a courtyard, into which one places the item against its will, makes the sender liable. What is the difference between them? The case of a priest who said to an Israelite, "Go and betroth for me a divorced woman," or, if you wish, the case of a man who said to a woman, "Round off for me the head of a minor." And is there one who holds that the courtyard was not derived from her hand? Has it not been taught, "I would know only her hand," and so on? Regarding divorce, all agree that the courtyard was derived from her hand; where they disagree is regarding a found object: one master holds we derive the found object from divorce, and one master holds we do not derive the found object from divorce. Or, if you wish: regarding a minor girl all agree that we derive the found object from divorce, and here they disagree concerning a minor boy: one master holds we derive the minor boy from the minor girl, and one master holds we do not. Or, if you wish: this master stated one ruling and that master stated another, and they do not actually disagree.