In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case when he gave him money for all of the land. But if he did not give him money for all of it, he acquires only the land corresponding to the money that he paid, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara comments: The baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once he takes possession of one of them he acquires all of them.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that this is true, as, if he handed him ten animals with one bridle [afsar] and said to him: Acquire them, doesn’t he acquire all of them? In this case, too, they are considered like one field. A Sage said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika: Is it comparable? There, its bond, i.e., the bridle that joins the animals, is in his hand. Here, in the case of ten fields, its bond is not in his hand.

There are those who say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that he does not acquire all of the fields by taking possession of only one field, as, if one passed to him ten animals with one bridle and said to him: Acquire this one, does he acquire all of them? The same applies here when he takes possession of only one field; it is as though he said to him: Acquire this one, and therefore he does not acquire the other fields in this manner.

The Gemara rejects this argument: Is it comparable? There, the animals are separate entities, and therefore when he says to him: Acquire this one, there is no reason that the other animals should be acquired as well. Here, the mass of the earth is one. Consequently, if he acquires one plot of land, he acquires the other plots along with it.

§ The mishna teaches: And in a legal dispute involving both land and movable property, if the defendant makes a partial admission of the claim with regard to the movable property, thereby rendering himself obligated to take an oath denying any responsibility for the remaining property, the movable property binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that he is forced to take an oath concerning the land as well, despite the fact that one is generally not obligated to take an oath for a claim involving land. Ulla says: From where is it derived from the Torah that one can impose the extension of an oath, i.e., if one is required to take an oath for one claim, the other party can obligate him to take an oath with regard to other claims which on their own would not lead to the imposition of an oath?

As it is stated with regard to a sota: “And the woman shall say: Amen, amen” (Numbers 5:22), and we learned in a mishna (Sota 18a): Concerning what does she say the double expression of: Amen, amen? She says amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married, nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam.

The Gemara analyzes this halakha: What are the circumstances with regard to this betrothed woman? If we say that he warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he gives her the bitter water of a sota to drink when she is betrothed, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): With regard to a betrothed woman who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, and a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her yavam, they neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states as part of her oath: “But if you have gone aside, being under your husband” (Numbers 5:20), and that does not apply here, as these women are not yet under their husband’s authority.

Rather, one must say that he warned her when she was betrothed, i.e., he warned her when she was betrothed not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man when she was betrothed, and he gave her the water to drink when she was married.

The Gemara asks: But in this case, does the water she is given to drink examine her and cause her death? Doesn’t the Merciful One state: “And the man shall be clear from iniquity” (Numbers 5:31)? This verse indicates: When the man is clear from iniquity, the water examines his wife; but if the man is not clear from iniquity with regard to the matter of illicit sexual intercourse, the water does not examine his wife. Since he suspected her of impropriety when she was betrothed and warned her about a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man regardless of his warning, he was not allowed to engage in intercourse with her. If he did so, he is a sinner himself, and therefore the water will not affect his wife. If so, it is impossible for a betrothed woman to be examined as a sota.

Rather, it is clear that this oath is administered by means of an extension. Although the husband cannot force her to take an oath only with regard to her behavior before they were married, since she must take an oath with regard to her behavior during her marriage, he can extend the oath to include incidents that occurred while she was betrothed.

The Gemara comments: We found a source for the extension of an oath in the case of a sota, which is a halakha involving a prohibition. From where do we derive that an oath can be extended with regard to monetary matters as well? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that this can be derived through an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a sota,