Rav Pappa

<<said:

<<when

<<instituted

<<for him

<<the Rabbis

<<four cubits,

<<it was in general;

<<in the field

<<of a householder

<<did not

<<institute

<<for him

<<the Rabbis.

<<And even though

<<the Merciful One granted him

<<[rights] in it,

<<when

<<the Merciful One granted him

<<to walk

<<in it

<<and to take

<<pe'ah,

<<to be

<<his courtyard

<<did not

<<the Merciful One grant him.

Rava said:

<<objects

<<Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi

<<from Nezikin:

<<if he saw

<<the found object

<<and fell

<<upon it,

<<and came

<<another

<<and took hold

<<of it —

<<this one

<<who took hold

<<of it

<<has acquired

<<it.

<<And if

<<you say

<<the four cubits

<<of

<<a person

<<acquire

<<for him

<<in every

<<place,

<<let them be acquired

<<for him —

<<the four cubits

<<that are his!

Here with what are we dealing?

<<Where he did not

<<say

<<“let me acquire”.

<<And if

<<instituted

<<the Rabbis —

<<when

<<he did not

<<say —

<<what

<<is it?!

<<Since

<<he fell

<<upon it,

<<he revealed

<<his intent

<<that by falling

<<he is content

<<to acquire;

<<by the four

<<cubits

<<he is not

<<content

<<to acquire.

Rav Sheshes

<<said:

<<when

<<instituted

<<the Rabbis,

<<it was in an alleyway

<<where do not

<<press

<<the multitude;

<<in the public domain

<<where

<<press

<<the multitude,

<<did not

<<institute

<<the Rabbis.

But

<<“in every

<<place”

<<he said!

“Every

<<place”

<<is to include

<<the sides of

<<the public domain.

And Reish Lakish said in the name of Abba Kohen Bardela:

<<a minor girl

<<she does not have

<<a courtyard,

<<and she does not have

<<four cubits.

<<And Rabbi Yochanan

<<in the name of

<<Rabbi Yannai

<<said:

<<she does have

<<a courtyard,

<<and she does have

<<four cubits.

In what do they disagree?

<<One master

<<holds:

<<a courtyard

<<on account of

<<her hand

<<was included;

<<just as

<<she has

<<a hand,

<<a courtyard

<<too

<<she has.

<<And one master

<<holds:

<<a courtyard

<<on account of

<<agency

<<was included;

<<and just as

<<agency

<<she does not have,

<<a courtyard

<<too

<<she does not have.

Is

<<there

<<anyone

<<who says

<<a courtyard

<<on account of

<<agency

<<was included?

<<But it was taught:

<<“in his hand” —

<<I have

<<only

<<his hand.

<<His roof,

<<his courtyard

<<and his enclosure —

<<from where?

<<The verse says:

<<“if it be surely found” —

<<from any

<<place.

And if

<<it enters your mind

<<a courtyard

<<on account of

<<agency

<<was included,

<<if so

<<we have found

<<an agent

<<for a sinful matter,

<<and we hold

<<there is no

<<agent

<<for a sinful matter!

Ravina said:

<<where

<<do we say

<<that there is no

<<agent

<<for a sinful matter?

<<Where

<<the agent

<<subject to liability

<<he is;

<<but

<<with a courtyard,

<<which is not

<<subject to liability

<<it is,

<<liable is

<<the one who sent it.

But now,

<<one who says

<<to a woman

<<and a slave:

<<“go

<<steal

<<for me” —

<<who are not

<<subject to liability

<<they are —

<<so too

<<that liable is

<<the one who sent them?!

You say:

<<a woman

<<and a slave

<<are subject to liability

<<they are,

<<and now

<<at any rate

<<they have not

<<the means to pay.

<<For we learned:

<<if she was divorced —

<<the woman —

<<if he was freed —

<<the slave —

<<they are liable

<<to pay.

Rav Sama

<<said:

<<where

<<do we say

<<there is no

<<agent

<<for a sinful matter?

<<Where

<<if

<<he wishes

<<he does it

<<and if

<<he wishes

<<he does not

<<do it;

<<but

<<a courtyard,

<<against his will

<<he places

<<[the object] in it —

<<liable is

<<the one who sent.

What is between them?

<<There is between them

<<a kohen

<<who said

<<to him —

<<to a Yisrael:

<<“go

<<and betroth

<<for me

<<a woman

<<who is divorced”;

<<or also

<<a man

<<who said

<<to her —

<<to a woman:

<<“round off

<<for me

<<a minor['s hair]”.

According to that version

<<which says

<<wherever

<<if

<<he wishes

<<he does it,

<<if

<<he wishes

<<he does not

<<do it,

<<is not

<<liable

<<the one who sent —

<<these

<<too:

<<if

<<they wish

<<they do it,

<<if

<<they wish

<<they do not

<<do it,

<<is not

<<liable

<<the one who sent them.

<<According to that version

<<which you said,

<<wherever

<<the agent

<<is not

<<subject to liability

<<liable is

<<the one who sent —

<<these

<<too:

<<since

<<they are not

<<subject to liability

<<they are,

<<liable is

<<the one who sent them.

And is

<<there

<<anyone

<<who says

<<a courtyard

<<not

<<on account of

<<her hand

<<was included?

<<But it was taught:

<<“her hand” —

<<I have

<<only

<<her hand.

<<Her roof,

<<her courtyard

<<and her enclosure —

<<from where?

<<The verse says:

<<“and he shall give” —

<<from any

<<place!

With regard to

<<a get

<<everyone

<<does not

<<disagree

<<that a courtyard

<<on account of

<<her hand

<<was included;

<<where

<<they disagree

<<is with regard to

<<a found object.

<<One master

<<holds: