Talmud sur Ketoubot 6:6
יְתוֹמָה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאַתָּה אִמָּהּ אוֹ אַחֶיהָ מִדַּעְתָּהּ, וְכָתְבוּ לָהּ בְּמֵאָה אוֹ בַחֲמִשִּׁים זוּז, יְכוֹלָה הִיא מִשֶּׁתַּגְדִּיל לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָן מַה שֶּׁרָאוּי לְהִנָּתֵן לָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשִּׂיא אֶת הַבַּת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, יִנָּתֵן לַשְּׁנִיָּה כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנָּתַן לָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם עָנִי וְהֶעֱשִׁיר אוֹ עָשִׁיר וְהֶעֱנִי, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים וְנוֹתְנִין לָהּ:
Si un orphelin a été marié par sa mère ou ses frères par son consentement, et qu'ils lui ont écrit (une dot de) cent ou cinquante zuz, elle peut, à l'âge adulte, leur prendre ce qui lui appartenait de droit [a dixième de l'héritage]. R. Yehudah dit: S'il [le père] épouse la première fille [de son vivant], la seconde reçoit ce qui a été donné à la première [que ce soit moins ou plus d'un dixième. La halakha est conforme à R. Yehudah, que nous suivons le jugement du père. Et si nous ne pouvons pas déterminer ce qu'était ce jugement, on lui donne un dixième des biens existants au moment de son mariage.—de la terre, mais pas de biens meubles. (Il y a ceux qui soutiennent qu'aujourd'hui, elle reçoit aussi un dixième de biens meubles.) Et si au moment de son mariage elle ne l'a pas réclamé des héritiers, elle peut le réclamer après son mariage, et nous ne disons pas que elle leur renonce. Et cela ne s'applique que lorsqu'elle est nourrie de la propriété de son père; mais si les héritiers cessaient de la nourrir, (on suppose que) elle y renonça, sauf indication contraire. Et si elle était une bogereth, qui n'est pas nourrie par eux, et qu'elle s'est mariée sans réclamer ce qui lui était dû comme dot de la propriété de son père, (on suppose que) elle l'a renoncé aux héritiers, et elle ne peut plus réclamer même si elle était nourrie de leurs biens.] Les sages disent: Parfois un homme pauvre devient riche et un homme riche devient pauvre. La propriété est plutôt évaluée et (sa part) lui est donnée.
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
The problem is an old one; Meïri, after Rashi the second most important Medieval commentator, asked Rashba for an explanation (cf. Note 64). Meïri’s text read טרפו “his forclosure document,” Rashba’s read תרפו “his sales document.” This is Rashba’s anwer:
“It is my opinion that our text is defective and it should be as follows: Reuben robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi, then Reuben bought it from Simeon but before he could write the sales contract, he died. That is the case about which Samuel asked Rav in (Babli) Baba Meṣi‘a (15b), viz., if it turns out that the field was not his, but he went and bought it from the original owners, what are the rules? He told him, the first (the robber) sold to the second (the buyer) any present and future rights to the parcel.… And this is the explanation of this text according to my understanding: Reuben had robbed a field from Simeon and sold it to Levi who did not realize that it was robbed. Afterwards, Reuben bought the parcel from Simeon, but Simeon had not yet written the sales contract when Reuben died: who is the owner? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav: One says if the document was first, if the sale was completed before he died, the sale was final and Reuben did not transfer [the field] to Levi; this shows that Reuben did not intend to leave the field in Levi’s hands, ostensibly to leave it to his heirs. He does not spell this out since the sales document was not yet written. The other one said, there is no difference between written and not written, he wants the field to be Levi’s since he did not dispose of the field in a will. (The same Rav Huna and Ḥiyya bar Rav disagree in the Babli Baba Meṣi‘a (16a) about the time available to the robber to act to protect his credit.) Rebbi Mana has a different explanation: He says that in any case the field belongs to Reuben, following Rami bar Ḥama (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who said that Levi’s contract was not worth the paper it was written on. But Rebbi Yose bar Abun is of the opposite opinion, since Levi can tell him, is the field not now before you that you can turn the sale into a valid one. This follows Rava (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a) who told Rami bar Ḥama that Levi acquired the property by the trust he put in Reuben.
But following your reading, since you read טרפו with ט, it is possible that this refers to a foreclosure document which Levi obtained against the robber after he had lost the field to Simeon, and that is the same disagreement we find there (in the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a 16a); how long does a person have credit, Rav says until the start of court proceedings, Ḥiyya bar Rav says, until the foreclosure document was signed, and Rav Papa said, until the public sale.”? Rav Huna and Ḥiyya the son of Rav: One said, if he wrote the foreclosure document, it is Reuben’s, if not, it is Levi’s. The other one said, whether he wrote or did not write, it belongs to Levi. Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable that it does not belong to Reuben since he can say to him, I sold you something which was not mine. Rebbi Yose said, it is not reasonable that it should not be Levi’s, since Reuben68Rashba reads "Levi" as text, not as correction. can tell him, is this not before you? You are good to confirm the sale.