Kiddushin - Daf 27
- אגב where the two kinyanim are different types, or to different people
The Gemara asks about the kinyan of אגב: שדה במכר ומטלטלין במתנה מהו – If the field is being sold, and the movable items are being gifted, what is the halachah? Can items be acquired alongside land with a different type of transaction? This is resolved from a Mishnah in which Rabban Gamliel transferred his future maaser to Rebbe Yehoshua by renting his field to him. Since renting is akin to a sale, and the maaser was given as a gift, it demonstrates that אגב is effective even in such a case.
The Gemara asks further: שדה לאחד ומטלטלין לאחר מהו – If the field is given to one person and the movable items to another person, what is the halachah? Can אגב enable transferring movable items to a different person than the one acquiring the land? The Gemara quotes the same Mishnah, in which Rebbe Akiva acquired maaser ani on behalf of the poor by renting Rabban Gamliel’s field, showing that אגב even operates to acquire for another person. The Gemara answers that Rebbe Akiva may have also rented the field on behalf of the poor. Alternatively, Rebbe Akiva is unique, דיד עניים הוה – because he is the “hand” of the poor. As their treasurer, his renting land is the equivalent of the poor renting it.
- Acquiring ten separate fields or animals with one kinyan
A Baraisa is brought which supports Shmuel’s statement: מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות – If one sold to [another] ten fields in ten countries, כיון שהחזיק באחת מהן – once he performed a chazakah in one of them, קנה את כולן – he acquires all of them. Rav Acha the son of Rav Ikka attempted to prove this: שאילו מסר לו עשר בהמות באפסר אחד – for if one handed [a buyer] ten animals tied with a single halter, ואמר ליה קני – and he told him, “Acquire them,” מי לא קני – does he not acquire them all? The Gemara says the cases are not analogous: התם איגודו בידו – there, [the animal’s] bond is in his hand, connecting them all, whereas הכא אין איגודו בידו – here, [the field’s] “bond” is not in his hand, i.e., the fields are not considered connected. In a second version, Rav Acha attempted to disprove Shmuel, arguing that if one handed a buyer ten animals tied with one halter and said, "זו קני" – Acquire this one, he would not acquire the other animals. Here, too, telling him acquire a nearby field (where the others are elsewhere) is tantamount to saying “Acquire this one”!? The Gemara answers: התם גופים מוחלקים – There, [the animals] are separate bodies, thus the seller’s instructions mean to acquire only one, whereas הכא סדנא דארעא חד הוא – here, the block of the earth is one, and all the fields are included in the acquisition.
- The source for גלגול שבועה
The Mishnah taught that a שבועה obligation on movable items could subject unmovable property to a שבועה (although land is ordinarily exempt from any שבועה obligations), called גלגול שבועה. Ulla provides the source from the sotah, who says "אמן אמן", and a Mishnah explains that she is swearing about multiple possible acts of adultery, including: אמן שלא סטיתי ארוסה ונשואה ושומרת יבם וכנוסה – Amen that I did not stray while an arusah, nesuah, shomeres yavam, or married yevamah. Since only a nesuah can undergo the sotah procedure, and she cannot have become a nesuah through relations after her illegal seclusion as an arusah, because such relations with the husband are forbidden, and disqualify the test. Perforce, the case is where she is swearing as a nesuah, and also swears about her time as an arusah through the principle of גלגול שבועה. The Gemara proceeds to prove that this also applies to monetary shevuos, and even where the claimant is uncertain.
