Yevamot 38A

דרכי (חד גבך) [גבי חד] הוא. אבל הכא, מי איכא למימר הכי?

my one path is with you in one of your pieces of land. Since his claim is based on facts that are clear and certain, his claim is successful. However, here, in the dispute over the inheritance, is the son of uncertain descent able to state a claim like this? Although the son of uncertain descent claims that ultimately, whatever the nature of his relationship with the deceased is, he should have the right to inherit, nevertheless, since it is not actually known what that relationship is, his claim in reality is merely a composite of uncertain claims.

ורבי ירמיה אמר לך: אנא דאמרי אפילו לרבנן, עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם, אלא משום דאמר ליה: אי שתקת ⁠— שתקת. ואי לא, מהדרנא שטרא למרייהו ולא מצית לאשתעויי דינא בהדייהו, אבל הכא ⁠— מי איכא למימר הכי?

And R' Yirmeya could have said to you: I stated my ruling even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, since perhaps the Rabbis state their ruling only there, in the case of the lost path, because the owner of the surrounding land said to the field owner: If you do not press your claim and are silent, then be silent and I will sell you the path at a reasonable price; but if not, then I will return the bills of purchase of the pieces of land to their previous owners and then you will not be able to successfully engage in a legal dispute with them. He is successful with this claim because it is within his power to return the fields and thereby recreate the original circumstances in which the owner of the field would forfeit the path. However, here, are the sons of the yavam able to state a claim like this? The original circumstance, in which the inheritance of the deceased had still not been divided, cannot be recreated. Therefore, a claim based on that circumstance will be unsuccessful.