Hazakah acquires all ten fields only if he paid for all of them. But if not, it only acquires that which he paid for. This is the line that is similar to Rava’s line.
The baraita is word for word the same as Shmuel’s statement.
According to R. Aha son of R. Ika the proof from the baraita’s rule is that one obviously can acquire ten cows tied together by one cord. So too one can acquire ten pieces of land by buying one of them.
Someone unknown responded to R. Aha telling him his comparison is not justified. In the case of the cows, he has one tie connected to all of them. In the case of the land, there is nothing connecting him to the other pieces of land.
In this version, R. Aha son of R. Ika critiques the baraita by comparing it with another halakhah. In this version of the cows, he acquires only one cow. Therefore, R. Aha compares, he should acquire only one piece of land.
The Talmud then rejects this as well. Acquiring one cow cannot allow one to acquire another cow because each cow is separate. But the land is all one piece. Acquiring one piece can allow one to acquire other pieces as well.
Today’s section discusses the last clause of the mishnah. To ease understanding this, I’m going to copy my explanation from there again here. The clause reads:
And it obligates the property which provides security, to take an oath concerning them.
In Mishnah Shevuoth 6:5 we learned that people do not take oaths over land. For instance, if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him land, and Shimon admits to part of the claim, he need not swear that he does not owe him the rest, as he would were Reuven to claim that Shimon owes him money or animals. However, if Shimon needs to take an oath over movable property and land, since he must take an oath over the movable property he must also take an oath over the land. This could happen if Reuven claims that Shimon owes him a piece of land and a 100 sheep. If Shimon admits that half of the land is Reuven’s and half of the sheep, he must take an oath over both the land and the sheep which he claims not to owe.
At the basis of the mishnah in Kiddushin is the idea of “the extension of the oath,” gilgul shevuah in Hebrew. The idea is that if you are liable for an oath for one thing but not for another, since you must take the oath on one item, I can also impose on you an oath for the other thing as well.
Ulla claims that this idea comes from the repetition of the word “amen” when the sotah woman, suspected of adultery, responds to the oath administered to her. The second “amen” is an oath that she did not commit adultery with any other man. The Talmud will explore this and eventually show that one of these oaths is what we would call an “extension of an oath.”
The woman who says Amen cannot be a betrothed woman because betrothed women do not drink the water.
If the husband warns her when she is a betrothed woman and then she was secluded with him, he should not marry her. He must divorce her. If he does marry her then he too has sinned. If he has sinned, she does not drink the water. So a betrothed woman can never take this oath.
The husband cannot make his betrothed wife take an oath. But if he is making his married wife take an oath, he can at the same time make her take an oath that she did not have relations with another man while betrothed. This is the biblical proof of the technique of “extension of an oath.”
Last week we concluded by learning about “oath extensions” (Hebrew, גלגול שבועה). The idea is that if a person can legally make someone take an oath about X, he can also make him take an oath about Y, even though he cannot alone make him take an oath on Y. This was learned from the case of the Sotah.
Sotah is what is called a “prohibition” which loosely refers to laws that are really between God and humanity (Shabbat, kashrut, purity etc). The question is can oaths be extended in the realm of monetary law as well.
To make the woman drink the Sotah waters and take the oath, two witnesses are needed. But a claimant needs only one witness to make someone take an oath that they do not owe money. So if an oath extension works in the case where it is harder in general to impose an oath, all the more so it works in the case where it is easier to impose an oath.