Bava Batra 131A

מגמר נמי לא תגמרו מיניה ⁠– דאין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות.

but do not learn from it either, as a judge has only what his eyes see as the basis for his ruling. One must rule according to his own understanding.

בעי רבא: בבריא היאך? כי קאמר רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה ⁠– בשכיב מרע, דבר אורותי הוא; אבל בבריא ⁠– לא; או דלמא אפילו בבריא נמי?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: In the case of a healthy person who bequeaths his estate to one of his sons, how should the court rule? Should it be reasoned that when R' Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that the bequeathal is valid, he said so specifically with regard to the case of a person on his deathbed, since he is capable of bequeathal, as the verse: “In the day that he causes his sons to inherit” (Deuteronomy 21:16), from which the validity of this bequeathal is derived, is referring specifically to the time of one’s death; but in the case of a healthy person, he did not say his ruling? Or perhaps he stated his ruling even in the case of a healthy person.

אמר ליה רב משרשיא לרבא: תא שמע, דאמר לו רבי נתן לרבי: שניתם משנתכם כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה! דתנן: לא כתב לה ״בנין דיכרין דיהוין ליך מינאי, אינון ירתון כסף כתובתיך יותר על חולקיהון דעם אחוהון״⁠ – חייב, שתנאי בית דין הוא.

Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: Come and hear a resolution of your dilemma from a baraita, as R' Natan said to R' Yehuda HaNasi: You taught in your Mishnah in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as we learned in a Mishnah (Ketubot 52b): If the husband did not write for her in her marriage contract: Any male children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portion of the inheritance that they receive together with their brothers, he is nevertheless obligated as though he had written it, as it is a stipulation of the court and consequently takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. This Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan ben Beroka that one may add to the share of some of his sons at the expense of the others.