Wow, I responded al regel ahas… I need to correct a few errors in my response (and stop responding al regel ahas so often):
First, just delete what I wrote in parentheses in my previous post regarding mitzvah to marry. That opens up a can of worms (well, actually rishonim, but anyhow it’s not shiach to the point).
Second, I should just clarify that taka yes, “a woman is her husband’s field” does refer to r’shus issues… meaning that yes, the wife enters the husband’s r’shus and not vice versa. However, she cannot be sold like a field, so one must understand there are limitations to this statement.
Thirdly, I meant to only bold the “in this case”… meaning that a woman’s status as her husband’s field refers to r’shus as I said, so since she enters his r’shus and becomes zocheh to his providing for her (and not the other way around), the man cannot claim that her mazal is at fault.
Anyhow, it still has nothing to do with ishto k’gufo. And regardless, I should’ve mentioned before, but you haven’t showed how my original logic was a boich svara. You’ve just brought a Tosefos and tried to equate it to ishto k’gufo.