Yerushalmi Ketubot 10:6 ירושלמי כתובות י׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: If somebody was married to two wives when he sold his field and the first wife wrote to the buyers “I have no claims against you”, the second takes from the buyer, the first from the second, and the buyer from the first⁹⁶If the husband died and his estate did not suffice to satisfy the second wife’s ketubah, she can have regress on the field since she did not sign away her rights. Since the first wife’s ketubah has to be satisfied before the second wife has any claim, the first can take the field which by the action of the second was no longer the buyer’s property but becomes part of the estate. But since the first had given up any claim to that field, the buyer can claim it back from the first. Therefore, all three claimants are forced to agree to a compromise to have any use of the property.; they go on in circles until they compromise between them. The same holds for a creditor⁹⁷If a loan was given in the value of two fields which the borrower then sold, and the creditor wrote to the second buyer that he would not exercise his rights against him; if the loan is foreclosed, the creditor can take the first field; the first buyer can indemnify himself by taking the second field; the creditor can take it from the first buyer but the second buyer can reclaim it from the creditor, etc. and a woman who is a creditor⁹⁸An only wife whose ketubah was secured by two fields which were sold by her husband, and who wrote to the second buyer that she would not exercise her claim against him. In the last two cases it is necessary that the renunciation be for the second buyer since if it were for the first, the second would have no regress on the first..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody was married to two wives,” etc. Rebbi Yose said, this means that if somebody borrowed from two persons and the second comes and says to him, get up and let us settle⁹⁹He realizes that the borrower is not in a position to repay the entire loan. Since his loan is an essentially unsecured second mortgage, he can settle with the borrower to receive part of the mortgaged property. Even if the secured first mortgage giver will in the end foreclose, the second has the usufruct in the meantime and will have saved something., and [the borrower] says, will not in the end the first hear of it and come to foreclose, he [the second lender] may say let us settle, and if he forecloses, he forecloses. If he settled¹⁰⁰In the text, either מן is superfluous or a word is missing and it should read מן השני., one may assume that the first will come and foreclose. If he settled with the first¹⁰¹The first, secured, mortgage holder settled with the borrower and in the foreclosing took only part of the field while he could have taken all of it. The question now is whether the piece of land is remaining in the borrower’s hand or if it was assumed to be foreclosed and then returned to the borrower. In the second case, the borrower took possession after the date of the second mortgage and the second lender has no regress. In the first case, the second lender may foreclose., Rebbi Phineas said, such a case came before Rebbi Jeremiah who said, he settled¹⁰²The second lender may not foreclose.. Rebbi Yose said, did he not write “what I shall acquire”¹⁰³If the loan contract stipulated that all the borrower’s present and future real estate holdings are mortgaged, there should be no difference in the status of the property left after a compromise with the first mortgage holder.? It happens only with an heir¹⁰⁴If the future clause really was in the contract, the second mortgage holder can foreclose from the original borrower. But if the borrower died and the heir settled with the holder of the first mortgage, the remaining land was acquired by the heir, not the borrower, and is not subject to the second mortgage.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, even with a creditor it can happen if he did not write “anything I shall acquire”, or if he said, “you shall not be paid except from this.¹⁰⁵If the mortgage was written on a specific piece of land, the lender cannot foreclose anything else.” Rav Mattaniah said, this follows him who said, for ketubah but not for stipulations¹⁰⁶The court stipulations required for any ketubah as enumerated in Chapter 4, in particular the “ketubah of male sons”. Whether this stipulation can be satisfied by foreclosure is discussed in the Babli, 55a, and the Yerushalmi, Baba batra 8:6 (16b 1.23).
The answer is positive in the Yerushalmi, negative in the Babli. For the Yerushalmi, the renunciation by the mother of her claim against the buyer is not valid for her heirs; they are free to foreclose in any case.. But for him who said, for ketubah and for stipulations, does it not return?