Reference for Bava Batra 265:3
אמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שכתב כל נכסיו לאחר רואין אם ראוי ליורשו נוטלן משום ירושה ואם לאו נוטלן משום מתנה
But since she may seize<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go down'. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> the palm-tree she may also seize<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'go down'. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> all the estate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the share that was given to the son. A wife is assumed to renounce the claims to which her kethubah entitles her only when her husband had disposed of all his estate, in which case she must have known that nothing was left for her kethubah and, since she did not protest, she must have acquiesced in its forfeiture. When, however, one palm-tree remains, she is assumed to rely on the proceeds of that tree for the payment of the kethubah. Consequently, she does not renounce her rights; and her silence is assumed to be due to a desire for postponing her protest until the value of the tree had been ascertained. When, therefore, it becomes known that the palm-tree does not cover the amount of her kethubah, she is entitled to seize any other part of the estate also. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> R. Huna said, [if] a dying man assigned all his estate, in writing, to another [person]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not specifying whether as an 'inheritance' or as a 'gift'. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>