열왕기하 1:4의 Responsa

R. Solomon b. Machir discusses the case of a husband who sold, without his wife's consent, property which he had originally contributed to the household, upon marriage. R. Solomon maintains that this property had become mortgaged to the wife's ketubah, and therefore the husband cannot sell it without his wife's consent; neither is it subject to collection by a creditor. The same applies to clothing for daily wear that was given to the wife following the wedding.
However, jewelry and Sabbath clothes which were given to the wife following the wedding, is subject to collection by a creditor, and the husband has the right to sell same, unless it was certain, that the husband intended that it be mortgaged for the ketubah.
R. Hayyim Eliezer is in doubt about R. Solomon's conclusions.

Q- (2) A's father was the child of G and L, while B was the child of G and R. A claims that his father was entitled to L's ketubah and therefore claims his father's right of Ketubat Benin Dikrin (the ketubah of a woman, who died before her husband, collected from his estate by her sons [who are also his sons] before the rest of the estate is divided among the heirs), in addition to a double share of G's estate.
A - (2) A inherits his father's right of Ketubat Benin Dikrin.