Bava Batra 133A

אמר ליה רב כהנא: אילו הדר קני, מי לא שקלא? וכיון דאילו הדר קני ⁠– שקלא, השתא נמי שקלא.

Rav Kahana said to him: If the husband had then acquired other property, would she not have taken it as payment of her marriage contract? And since if he would have then acquired other property she would have taken it as payment of her marriage contract, now she also takes the deceased daughter’s share as payment of her marriage contract.

ההוא דפלגינהו לנכסיה לאתתיה ולבניה, שייר חד דיקלא. סבר רבינא למימר: לית לה אלא חד דיקלא. אמר ליה רב יימר לרבינא: אי לית לה, חד דיקלא נמי לית לה! אלא מיגו דנחתא לדיקלא, נחתא נמי לכולהו נכסי.

There was a certain person who divided his property between his wife and his son, leaving out a single palm tree. Ravina thought to say that the wife has only the single palm tree as future payment of her marriage contract, which was presumably left out of the distribution for this reason. Rav Yeimar said to Ravina: If she does not have the right to collect payment of her marriage contract from all of his property, as she presumably waived that right when he gave her the gift of some of his property, she does not have the right to collect it from the single palm tree either and it belongs to the heirs. Rav Yeimar presents a different ruling: Rather, since the halakha is that she does descend to collect the palm tree, she therefore descends to collect all of the property as well, i.e., she receives payment of her marriage contract from all the property.

אמר רב הונא: שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחר ⁠– רואין; אם ראוי ליורשו ⁠– נוטלן משום ירושה, ואם לאו ⁠– נוטלן משום מתנה.

§ Rav Huna says: With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting all his property to another, the court investigates the legal status of the recipient: If he is fit to inherit from him, e.g., if he is one of his sons, he takes the property as an inheritance, and if not, he takes it as a gift.