Responsa for Gittin 153:19

וכדרבא דאמר רבא האומר

this tells me on]y that [he is liable if the theft is found] in his hand. Whence do I learn that [he is equally liable if it is found] on his roof, or in his courtyard or his enclosure? From the significant words, 'If it be found at all', which means, under all circumstances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. op. cit. p. 56. ');">¹⁶</span> And [both expositions are] necessary. For had I only the one regarding the Get, I should have said that the reason is because [she is divorced] against her will,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore her courtyard serves the purpose equally with her hand. ');">¹⁷</span> but [that this rule does] not apply to a thief who cannot become such against his will.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, if, for instance, an animal entered his courtyard and he locked it in without touching it, I might think that he would not be liable. ');">¹⁸</span> And had I been given the rule in regard to the thief only, I should have said [that it applied to him] because the All-Merciful imposed a fine upon him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To repay double. Ex. loc. cit. This would indicate that the law was in general more severe with him. ');">¹⁹</span> but not to a Get. Hence both were necessary. It says]. HER COURTYARD. [How can this be, Seeing that] whatever a woman acquires belongs to her husband? — R. Eleazar said: We presume him to have given her a written statement that he has no claim on her property. But suppose he did do so, what difference does it make, seeing that it has been taught.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 43a. ');">²⁰</span> 'If a man says to another [a partner.] I have no claim on this field, I have no concern in it, I entirely dissociate myself from it, his words are of no effect'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Unless and until he makes it over as a gift.] ');">²¹</span> — The school of R. Jannai explained: We suppose him to have given her this written statement while she was still betrothed, and we adopt [at the same time] the maxim of R. Kahana; for R. Kahana said that a man may stipulate beforehand that he will not take up a prospective inheritance from an outside source.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not his father, or next-of-kin according to the Torah. ');">²²</span> This too is based on a ruling of Raba, who said: If one says.

Teshuvot Maharam