R. Yasa citing R. Yochanan: If there were two fields, one in Yehudah and one in the Galil; if he took possession of the field in Yehudah in order to also acquire the field in the Galil, or vice-versa, he acquires both of them. However, in the case of the property of a dead convert (who has no inheritors), he only acquires the one that he actually took possession of, even if there is only a small strip of land that separates them.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Yasa): According to R. Yochanan, if a person took possession of the field of a convert, with intention to also acquire the strip of land next to it and the adjacent field, would he acquire all of them?

R. Yasa avoided giving an answer. (See Pnei Moshe)

Rav Chisda: Concerning the property of a convert, if a person took possession of their northern side in order to also acquire their southern side, or vice-versa; if he did not intend to acquire the middle section of the property, he does not acquire the field on the further side (since there is other land separating them); unless he also intended to acquire the middle section.

Rejection (Beraisa): If a convert died and a Jew grabbed his property, when he takes possession of a field (that contains standing produce), he becomes obligated in everything (to separate all gifts to the poor - Leket, Shichacha and Peah, as well as to separate Terumos and Maaseros).

If he takes possession of (a field in order to acquire) the standing produce, he is obligated in Leket, Shichacha and Peah, but exempt from Terumos and Maaseros.

Question (conclusion of rejection): Does the air between the stalks not make a separation?! Rather, we see that a separation between two items does not prevent making an acquisition on both together.

Mishnah in Maseches Bava Basra: If the flax in a field is attached to the ground and he detached a small part of it (one stalk), he has acquired all of the flax.

Shmuel: He has only acquired that stalk.

Question: But the Mishnah teaches that he acquires all of the flax?

Explanation (R. Yosi citing R. Avudama of Nechusa): Shmuel agrees to the case of that Mishnah since it involves the property of a convert.

Question (R. Yochanan): Could one acquire property by dragging (i.e. meshichah)?

Clarification (R. Ba bar Mamal): The question is only relevant to hard animal skins, as for soft skins, he must certainly lift them up.

Question against R. Ba bar Mamal: One who steals a money pouch and takes it out into the street on Shabbos, he is liable for payment, since he was already liable before Shabbos came.

But if he dragged it out, he is exempt from payment since the liability for the death penalty and for the payment came at the same instant. (In this case, we apply the ruling that when two different sins are performed at the same time, he is given the worse of the two punishments. This case proves that one could acquire movables by dragging.)

Answer (R. Matanya): We are referring to heavy sacks that are not usually dragged.

Question: (We learned in the Mishnah earlier, (see daf 26-1 (d)) that an oath over movables can also bring along with it an oath about land. This is known as gilgul shvuah.) What is the source for this concept?

Answer: From the oath made by the sotah (a woman suspected of adultery) - the Kohen forces her to accept an oath stating that she was not adulterous and that she accepts the Divine punishment if she guilty. She responds by saying (Bamidbar 5, 22), "Amen, Amen'' - "Amen'' that she was not adulterous with this man (under suspicion); "Amen'' that she was not adulterous with another man. (We learn from here that since she already making an oath about one man, we can include into that oath a response about another man - this is the concept of gilgul shvuah.)

Question: This only proves that we make a gilgul shvuah about things that are related to the original oath; what about making a gilgul shvuah about unrelated things?

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun- Mishnah in Maseches Sota): "Amen'' that she was not adulterous when betrothed or when married or when waiting to do yibum or after yibum. Are when betrothed and when waiting to do yibum relevant to the original oath? Rather, we include them even though they are not related.

Beraisa #1: Just as in the case of a sota, it is performed with an oath and a curse; so too all who make an oath, a potential curse must be invoked.

Beraisa #2: Although here there is an oath and a curse, not all people that make an oath must have a curse invoked.

Question: It is fine according to the one who says that we invoke a curse for all that make an oath; but according to the one that says that only for a sotah we invoke a curse, why do we only learn gilgul shvuah from sotah but not this?

Beraisa #1: Just a sotah responds with "Amen Amen'', so all who make an oath must respond with "Amen Amen''.

Beraisa #2: Even though a sotah responds in this way, others do not.

Question: It is fine according to the one who says that we require a response of "Amen Amen'' for all that make an oath; but according to the one that says that only a sotah answers "Amen Amen'', why do we only learn gilgul shvuah from sotah but not this?!