Study Ketubot folio 91A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
והכא בדינר מקרקעי קמיפלגי. מר סבר: מקרקעי — אין, מטלטלי — לא. ומר סבר: אפילו מטלטלי.
and here they disagree about a dinar’s worth of real estate: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of real estate, meaning that there was sufficient real estate to cover the sums specified in the marriage contracts and one dinar’s worth of land was still left over, then yes, each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus of the dinar was only in movable property, then no, they cannot; and one Sage, R' Shimon, holds that the heirs may claim the marriage contracts even if the surplus is in movable property.
ומי מצית אמרת הכי? והתנן, רבי שמעון אומר: אפילו יש שם נכסים שאין להם אחריות — אינן כלום, עד שיהא שם נכסים שיש להן אחריות יתר על שתי כתובות דינר!
The Talmud asks: But how can you say that? Didn’t we learn in the Mishnah (91a) that R' Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, it is considered as nothing, unless there is property that serves as a guarantee for a loan with a promissory note, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.
אלא, הכא בדינר משעבדי קמיפלגי. מר סבר: מבני חורין — אין, ממשעבדי — לא, ומר סבר: אפילו ממשעבדי.
Rather, here they disagree about a dinar of liened property: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of unsold property, then yes, each can claim the sum specified in his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus was only in liened property then no, he cannot. And one Sage, R' Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was in the form of liened property.