Explanation #1: They argue about whether the extra Dinar must be land, or if it can even be Metaltelim.

The first Tana holds that it must be land. R. Shimon holds that it can even be Metaltelim.

Rejection (the coming Mishnah - R. Shimon): Even if there is extra Metaltelim, the enactment applies only if there is an extra Dinar of land.

Explanation #2: They argue about whether or not the extra Dinar may be sold land, or if it must be Bnei Chorin.

The first Tana requires Bnei Chorin. R. Shimon allows sold land.

Objection: If so, why does R. Shimon say 'if there is an extra Dinar...'? He should say 'because there is an extra Dinar!'

Explanation #3: They argue about whether a full extra Dinar is required, or if even less than a Dinar suffices.

The first Tana requires a full Dinar; R. Shimon allows even less than a Dinar.

Objection: R. Shimon says that there must be an extra Dinar! (This connotes a full Dinar.)

Suggestion: Perhaps we misunderstood the Beraisa. Really, the first Tana says that the enactment applies (even with less than a Dinar), and R. Shimon says that it applies only when there is a (full) extra Dinar!

(Rashi - the first Tana means, (even) this (i.e. the first) woman's sons collect her Kesuvah after her death (due to Kesuvas Benin Dichrin), even without an extra Dinar. Tosfos - the first Tana said that there is no enactment when there is no excess. When there is any excess, it applies.)

Rejection: In the coming Mishnah, R. Shimon and the Chachamim who argue with him agree that a Dinar is required!

Defense of Explanations #1 and #2: We switch our understanding of the Beraisa. The first Tana says that the enactment applies even if the extra Dinar is Metaltelim, or (in Explanation #2) sold land. R. Shimon says that it applies only if the extra Dinar is of land (in Explanation #2 it must be Bnei Chorin).

(Mar Zutra): The Halachah is, Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when the husband dies in the middle. The Halachah is, a Kesuvah is considered like an extra Dinar.

Question: We understand why it was not enough to say only that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when he dies in the middle, for we might have thought that a Kesuvah is not considered like an extra Dinar;

Why didn't he just say that a Kesuvah is considered like an extra Dinar? We could deduce that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies when he dies in the middle!

Answer: One might have thought that the case is that he married three women, two of whom died before him and the third died after him, and she left only a daughter (and the collection of her Kesuvah counts as an extra Dinar);

However, if a woman who left sons died after him there is no enactment, lest there be quarrels! Mar Zutra teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): If a man married two women and died after them, and the orphans demand the Kesuvah of their mother and there is enough only to pay the Kesuvos, the heirs split the estate equally;

If there is a Dinar more than the Kesuvos, the sons of each mother receive their mother's Kesuvah. If orphans (of one mother) request to accept property at an inflated price, in order that the estate will be considered to have an extra Dinar, we do not accede. Rather, Beis Din evaluates the property.

Property that was destined to fall to the father is not part of the calculation;

R. Shimon says, even if there is extra Metaltelim, it means nothing. We require an extra Dinar of land.

(Gemara - Beraisa): If the Kesuvos are 1000 and 500, if there is an extra Dinar, each woman's sons receive their mother's Kesuvah. If not, they split the property equally.

Obviously, if there was an extra Dinar when he died, but the property depreciated (and when it is appraised, there is not an extra Dinar), the orphans (whose mother had the larger Kesuvah) already merited. (The enactment applies.)

Question: If there was not an extra Dinar when he died, but the property went up in value, does the enactment apply?

Answer: Such a case came before Rav Amram. He told the sons (whose mother had the small Kesuvah) to appease the sons of the other mother; if not, he will excommunicate them.

They came before Rav Nachman. He said that just like when there was an extra Dinar and the property depreciated, the orphans already merited, so too when there was not an extra Dinar and the property rose in value (Rashi - the sons whose mother had the small Kesuvah merited that the enactment does not apply. Tosfos - the sons whose mother had the large Kesuvah merited that the enactment applies.)

A man owed 1000 Zuz. He had two mansions, and sold each for 500 Zuz (to the same man).

The creditor took one mansion, and was about to take the other. The buyer took 1000 Zuz cash and said 'if one mansion is worth 1000 to you, consider one mansion full collection. If not, take 1000 Zuz.'

(Rami bar Chama): This is like our Mishnah. If the orphans offer to accept the value of the property above its true value (we do not heed them).

Objection (Rava): No. There, there is a loss (to the children of the mother with the small Kesuvah). Here, the creditor lent 1000 and receives 1000!

Question: (According to Rava, if the creditor accepted one mansion as payment,) when we write a document saying that the buyer's land was taken to pay the debt (and the seller owes him for it), for how much do we write it?

Answer #1 (Ravina): We write for 1000 Zuz.

Answer #2 (Rav Avira): We write for 500 Zuz.

The Halachah is, we write for 500 Zuz.

A man owed 100 Zuz, and had two small plots of land. He sold each for 50 Zuz (to the same man).

The creditor took one plot, and was about to take the other. The buyer took 100 Zuz cash and told him, if one plot is worth 100 to you, consider one plot full collection; if not, take 100 Zuz.

(Rav Yosef): This is like our Mishnah. If the orphans offer to accept the value of the property above its true value (we do not heed them).

Objection (Abaye): No. There, there is a loss (to the children of the mother with the small Kesuvah). Here, the creditor lent 100 and receives 100!

Question: (According to Abaye, if the creditor accepted one plot as payment,) when we write a document saying that the buyer's land was taken to pay the debt, for how much do we write it?

Answer #1 (Ravina): We write for 100 Zuz.

Answer #2 (Rav Avira): We write for 50 Zuz.

The Halachah is, we write for 50 Zuz. (An early version of Rashi, cited in Shitah Mekubetzes, asks why they needed to argue about this twice, and the Gemara need to rule like Rav Avira twice. He is unsure if we could distinguish land from houses. Chidushei ha'Rim says that this law depends on Dina d'Var Metzra (a neighbor's right to buy land before anyone else); some say that this does not apply to houses. The Me'iri says that in the latter episode, there were two different buyers. Alternatively, in both cases there were two buyers. They differ regarding from which the creditor collected first.)

A man owed 100 Zuz. He died, and the only land he left was a plot worth 50 Zuz. The creditor took it as partial payment. The orphans gave him 50 Zuz (and took the land back); the creditor took it again for final payment.

(Abaye): It is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay the debt of their father. The 50 Zuz they gave the creditor was l'Shem Mitzvah. The creditor was entitled to take the land again.

This is only if the orphans did not say that the 50 Zuz is the value of the land. If they said this, they expel him from the land (and he cannot collect any more, since the father didn't leave any other land).

Levi sold his mother's Kesuvah for Tovas Hana'ah (a small amount, since the buyer does not get anything until she is widowed or divorced, and gets nothing if she dies before her husband or if Levi dies before her). Levi stipulated that he will not give compensation if his mother protests. (A second explanation in Rashi says that after his father died, Levi sold land of his father that had been designated to pay the Kesuvah, for Tovas Hana'ah. The sale would be valid as long as his mother did not take the land.)

His mother never protested, and she died (after her husband). The son protested (the buyer should not collect).

(Rami bar Chama): He is in place of his mother (and he stipulated not to compensate if she protests).

Objection (Rava): Granted, he did not accept Acharayos (responsibility to compensate) for her protest, but for his own, he certainly did!