Ketubot

but they differ here on [the question whether it is necessary for the surplus] denar to consist of real estate. The one Master  holds that only real estate is regarded as a surplus  but not movables  and the other Master  holds that even movables [are regarded as surplus].  But can you say so?  Have we not learned, R. Simeon ruled: Even if there was movable property  it is of no avail  unless there was landed property [of the Value of] one denar more than [the total amount of] the two kethubahs?  — [The fact,] however, is that they  differ here on [the question whether] a denar of mortgaged property [is regarded as a surplus]. One Master  holds that only free property constitutes a surplus  but not mortgaged property, and the other Master  holds that mortgaged property also [constitutes a surplus]. If so,  [instead of stating,] 'R. Simeon ruled: If there is a surplus of one denar', should it not have been stated, 'Since there is a surplus of one denar'? — The fact, however, is that they  differ on [the question whether a sum] less than a denar [constitutes a surplus]. One Master  is of the opinion that only a denar constitutes a surplus  but not a sum less than a denar, and the other Master  holds that even less than a denar [constitutes a surplus]. But did not R. Simeon, however, say 'a denar'? And were you to reply. 'Reverse [their views]',  does not the first Tanna of the Mishnah  [it may be retorted] also speak of a denar?  — The fact, however, [is that we must follow] on the lines of the first two explanations. and reverse [the views]. Mar Zutra stated in the name of R. Papa: The law [is that where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the 'male children' kethubah, and that one kethubah  is regarded as the surplus over the other. [Now] granted that if we had been told that '[where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the "male children" kethubah', but had not been told that 'one kethubah is regarded as the surplus over the other' it might have been presumed [that the former law applied] Only where the surplus amounted to a denar but not otherwise.  [Why,] however, could we [not have] been informed [of the second law only, viz., that] 'one kethubah is regarded as the surplus over the other', and it would have been self-evident,  [would it not, that this ruling was] due to [the law that 'where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the "male children" kethubah'?  — If we were given the information in such a manner, [the law] might have been presumed [to apply to a case,] for instance, where a man had married three wives of whom two died during his lifetime and one after his death, and the last mentioned had given birth to a daughter who is not entitled to heirship.  but [not to the case where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death and the latter had given birth to a son, [since in this case] the possibility of a quarrel  might have to be taken into consideration,  hence we were taught [that even in this case one kethubah  is regarded as surplus over the other]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND THEY DIED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE HIMSELF DIED, AND THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES]  CLAIM THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH  [BUT THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND] IS ONLY ENOUGH  [FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE] TWO KETHUBAHS  [ALL THE ORPHANS] RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES.  IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS  OF [A MINIMUM OF] ONE DEN A R,  EACH GROUP OF SONS  RECEIVE THE KETHUBAH OF THEIR MOTHER.  IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES]  SAID, 'WE ARE OFFERING FOR OUR FATHER'S ESTATE ONE DEN AR MORE [THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE KETHUBAHS]', IN ORDER THAT THEY [MIGHT THEREBY BE ENABLED TO] TAKE THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH  THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED  AND  THE ESTATE IS [PROPERLY] VALUED AT THE BETH DIN. IF THE ESTATE INCLUDED  PROSPECTIVE PROPERTY,  IT IS NOT [REGARDED] AS [PROPERTY HELD] IN ACTUAL POSSESSION.  R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF THERE WAS MOVABLE PROPERTY  IT IS OF NO AVAIL  UNLESS THERE WAS LANDED PROPERTY [WORTH] ONE DENAR MORE THAN [ THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF] THE TWO KETHUBAHS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one wife had  [a kethubah for] a thousand [zuz] and the other for five hundred, each group of sons  receive the kethubah of their mother provided a surplus of one denar was available; otherwise, they must divide the estate in equal proportions. It is obvious [that if  the estate was] large  and  it depreciated,  the heirs have already  acquired ownership thereof.  What, [however, is the ruling where the estate was] small and it appreciated?  — Come and hear the case of the estate of the house of Bar Zarzur which was small and it appreciated, and when [the heirs] came [with their suit] before R. Amram he said to them, 'It is your duty  to satisfy them'.  As they disregarded [his ruling] he said to them, 'If you will not satisfy them I will chastise you with a thorn that causes no blood to flow'.  Thereupon he sent them to R. Nahman, who said to them 'Just as [in the case where an estate was] large and it depreciated