Responsa for Bava Batra 314:11
מאי גובה נמי דקתני חצי שבח:
he collects [the value of] the principal [even] from sold property but [that of the] improvement from free<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 683, n. 11. ');"><sup>36</sup></span> property [only]. Now, if that were so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and if there is', i.e., if the law is that the second creditor has equal rights with the first, owing to the fact that the land in question was purchased after the second loan. ');"><sup>37</sup></span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer. ');"><sup>38</sup></span> should [only be able to claim] half [the cost of his] improvement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer, who received no less security for his purchase than the creditor for his loan, should have the same rights as the creditor, just as, in the previous case, the second creditor has the same rights as the first. The improvement of the land, which obviously took place after the sale, may be regarded as land purchased by the debtor after the second loan and sold (since the improvement is claimed from him by both, first by the creditor and ultimately by the buyer. and, in either case, it was no more in his possession than the land sold). Accordingly, the creditor and the buyer (like the two creditors supra) are entitled to equal shares. The creditor could thus seize only half the value of the improvement, the other half remaining with the buyer. Why then should be collect from the seller its full value? ');"><sup>39</sup></span> — [The expression]. 'he collects', which was used,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'taught'. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> also implies half [the value of his] improvement.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. B must vacate the house; for L's ketubah was a lien upon it, before it was rented to B. L may remove anyone from the house, whether buyer, renter, or creditor; provided, of course, that her marriage to A took place, and A was owner of the house, before he sold it, rented it, or borrowed money. Therefore, if A left no movables and his estate does not exceed L's ketubah, B can not reclaim his money. If, however, A left movables with a third person, these movables ought to be turned over to B in payment of the obligation due him, and any excess should go to L. Whenever a creditor and a widow press their claims to an estate consisting of movables — unless the movables had previously been set aside by the husband for the payment of his wife's ketubah — the creditor has priority over the widow. The creditor's priority, however, as against the widow extends only to the payment of the Ikkar ketubah, the additional jointure, and that part of the dowry which the husband wrote in the ketubah in excess of what she actually gave him as dowry — thus in our ketubah we uniformly write that the wife brought in a dowry worth fifty pounds, regardless of the actual value of her dowry, and in our country a woman collects one hundred marks as her dowry, since we interpret the term "pound" to be a pound of weight, consisting of two marks. In regard to whatever the widow actually brought in as dowry she is considered a creditor sharing equally with other creditors in collecting from movables. Although a woman is entitled to collect the entire amount her husband wrote in the dowry clause of her ketubah in excess of what she actually brought in, she does not have equal right with a creditor in collecting that excess. Therefore, since in collecting her actual dowry from movables, L is on an equal footing with B, the movables mentioned above must be equally divided between L and B (and not in proportion to the respective obligations). When an estate consists of movables and immovables, and the latter do not suffice to cover the ketubah, the widow collects the Ikkar ketubah, the additional jointure, and the excess dowry, from the immovables, while she takes her part of the movables in payment of her actual dowry. The creditor may not claim that the immovables taken by the widow are in payment of her actual dowry, while she may not collect the rest of the ketubah from the movables until he, the creditor, collects his full debt therefrom, for the Ikkar ketubah and the additional jointure are liens upon the immovables, while in regard to the actual dowry she is considered a creditor entitled to share with the other creditors in collecting from movables (cf. Ket. 86a).
SOURCES: Am II, 67.