Since oaths are mentioned in the Torah generically, and in one case (that of sotah) it is specifically indicated that the oath must be accompanied by a curse, I derive that the same must obtain with all oaths in the Torah. Since in one case (that of sotah) it is specifically indicated that the oath must be administered under the Name "yod-keh," I derive the same for all oaths in the Torah. And since oaths are mentioned generically in the Torah, and of one of them (sotah), it was specified that it be (answered) with "Amen," so, I derive that the same holds true for all oaths in the Torah.
Abba Channan says in the name of R. Eliezer: ("Amen" is repeated here) to include the oath administered by the judges, that it be answered by "Amen." For if it is not answered by "Amen," it is rendered a "vain oath" (in the name of the L-rd.) Since oaths are mentioned generically in the Torah, and in one case (sotah) it is specifically indicated that a previous oath (i.e., an oath for a previous matter) can be "rolled" onto it (e.g., When she answers "Amen" to not having been defiled by this man, she also answers "Amen" to not having been defiled by another, etc.), I derive the same for all of the oaths in the Torah.
Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If in the instance of sotah, where no previous claim has been made against her, a previous oath is "rolled" onto her, then, in instances of thefts, where previous claims have been made, how much more so may previous oaths be "rolled" onto them!