Study Ketubot folio 91A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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,
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 pro
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. An
The Talmud asks: If that is so, the baraita should not have stated R' Shimon’s opinion using the conditional: R' Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar. In this case such a surplus certainly exists, and therefore it should have said: Since there is a surplus of a dinar.
Rather, the dispute can be explained differently: They disagree about a case where there is less than a dinar of surplus: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was worth a dinar, then yes, each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if it was less than a dinar then no, he