Kiddushin 27: More Details on Acquiring Movable Property with Land

The rabbis continue to understand the "how to" on transferring ownership of movable property - in this case, tithes for the priests and for the poor - by piling it on land that is also sold.  They ask questions about whether or not the movable property and land can be in different places, whether "acquire it" needs to be stated, whether a document or possession or money might stand alone or whether multiple conditions are required for the sale of property that is not guaranteed. The rabbis ask about the power differences regarding transfer of ownership via possession versus via document or money.  As well, they consider other questions, like whether the land and the movable property can be sold or gifted to different people.  

Amud (b) shares an interesting debate regarding multiple plots of land.  If a buyer has a document selling him ten plots of land in ten different countries, must he take possession of each individually?  Or does acquire all pieces of land after he has paid for all of them but possessed just one?  While the halacha agrees with this point, other examples are rejected - animals cannot be acquired by taking hold of one leash and pulling.  The argument is that each animal is a separate entity.  However, land is one large mass, the rabbis say.  Acquiring one plot allows us to acquire all of what we have purchased.

Ulla wonders about this concept.  Where can we find proof that when one takes an oath regarding one claim, the other party can ask him/her to take another oath that is otherwise not required?  An example from Masechet Sota is used to elucidate.  A woman accused of being a sota says "amen, amen" in response to a number of different oaths.  She only drinks the bitter waters if she was warned against seclusion with a particular man by her husband and she then went against those wishes.  

If she is betrothed, widowed or a yevama, she cannot drink the bitter waters at all.  This is because one cannot warn about seclusion in betrothal.  And once the couple is married, the husband must be free of iniquity for the bitter waters to work.  If he had intercourse with his wife after his accusation (which he would have to do to marry her), then the process of the sota is invalid.  

The Gemara notes that the sota ritual is based on a prohibition.  It asks where we might find an extension of an oath regarding monetary matters.  We will learn about this tomorrow!