## Kiddushin Daf 27b

###### Kiddushin 27b:1
[Kiddushin 27b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:1)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ דְּמֵי כוּלָּן, אֲבָל לֹא נָתַן לוֹ דְּמֵי כוּלָּן – לֹא קָנָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד מְעוֹתָיו. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָכַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר שָׂדוֹת בְּעֶשֶׂר מְדִינוֹת, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחְזִיק בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן – קָנָה אֶת כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Kiddushin 27b:2
[Kiddushin 27b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:2)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: תֵּדַע, שֶׁאִילּוּ מָסַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת בְּאַפְסָר אֶחָד וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״קְנֵי״ – מִי לָא קָנֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם אִיגּוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, הָכָא אֵין אִיגּוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Kiddushin 27b:3
[Kiddushin 27b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:3)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: תֵּדַע דְּלָא קָנֵי, אִילּוּ מָסַר לוֹ עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת בְּאַפְסָר אֶחָד וְאָמַר לוֹ ״זוֹ קְנֵי״ – מִי קָנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Kiddushin 27b:4
[Kiddushin 27b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:4)

מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם גּוּפִים מוּחְלָקִים, הָכָא סַדָּנָא דְאַרְעָא חַד הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 27b:5
[Kiddushin 27b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:5)

וְזוֹקְקִים אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְכוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִנַּיִן לְגִלְגּוּל שְׁבוּעָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Kiddushin 27b:6
[Kiddushin 27b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:6)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן״, וּתְנַן: עַל מָה הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת ״אָמֵן אָמֵן״? ״אָמֵן״ עַל הָאָלָה, ״אָמֵן״ עַל ״הַשְּׁבוּעָה״. ״אָמֵן״ אִם מֵאִישׁ זֶה, ״אָמֵן״ אִם מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר. ״אָמֵן״ שֶׁלֹּא סָטִיתִי אֲרוּסָה וּנְשׂוּאָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם וּכְנוּסָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Kiddushin 27b:7
[Kiddushin 27b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:7)

הַאי אֲרוּסָה הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּקַנִּי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְקָא מַשְׁקֵי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְהָתְנַן אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם לֹא שׁוֹתוֹת וְלֹא נוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָּה, מַאי טַעְמָא – ״תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֵיכָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Kiddushin 27b:8
[Kiddushin 27b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:8)

אֶלָּא דְּקַנִּי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְנִסְתְּרָה כְּשֶׁהִיא אֲרוּסָה, וְקָא מַשְׁקֵי לַהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נְשׂוּאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Kiddushin 27b:9
[Kiddushin 27b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:9)

מִי בָּדְקִי לַהּ מַיָּא? ״וְנִקָּה הָאִישׁ מֵעָוֹן״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָאִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן – מַיִם בּוֹדְקִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵין אִישׁ מְנוּקֶּה מֵעָוֹן – אֵין הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִים אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Kiddushin 27b:10
[Kiddushin 27b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:10)

אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי גִלְגּוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Kiddushin 27b:11
[Kiddushin 27b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/27b:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן סוֹטָה, דְּאִיסּוּרָא, מָמוֹנָא מְנָלַן? תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה סוֹטָה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*,**