The Mishnah and Gemara revisit the case of a member of a courtyard who dies on Shabbat, addressing acquisition of his share and the effect of heirs or other residents on the eruv and on carrying between the houses and courtyard.
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר בִּנְכָסָיו — אוֹסֵר. מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא כִּי לֹא הֶחְזִיק. אַדְּרַבָּה, כִּי לֹא הֶחְזִיק לָא אָסַר! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֵימָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק. וְהָא ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק״ קָתָנֵי? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם אֶלָּא מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְהַחְזִיק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — אוֹסֵר. מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֵר״, וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא כִּי הֶחְזִיק?! אַדְּרַבָּה, כִּי הֶחְזִיק אָסַר! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אֵימָא: ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק״. וְהָא ״אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק״ קָתָנֵי! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֶחְזִיק מִשֶּׁחָשֵׁיכָה, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְהַחְזִיק מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת רֵישָׁא אוֹסֵר, אַמַּאי אוֹסֵר? נִיבַטֵּל! מַאי ״אוֹסֵר״ דְּקָתָנֵי — עַד שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין, מַנִּי? — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת בְּשַׁבָּת. דִּתְנַן: מֵאֵימָתַי נוֹתְנִין רְשׁוּת? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ. אָמַר עוּלָּא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל, נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר ״כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת״. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מֵת גּוֹי בְּשַׁבָּת מַאי ״כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל יָפוֹת״ אִיכָּא? אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי בִּיטּוּל רְשׁוּת מִיקְנֵא רְשׁוּתָא הוּא, וּמִיקְנֵא רְשׁוּתָא בְּשַׁבָּת — אָסוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי אִסְתַּלּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וְאִסְתַּלּוֹקֵי רְשׁוּתָא בְּשַׁבָּת — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
In such a case, even though a different Jew took possession of the convert’s property, the one who acquires it renders carrying prohibited. If, however, he died after nightfall, even though a different Jew did not take possession of his property, it, i.e., carrying, is not prohibited, for carrying had already been permitted on that Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The baraita itself is difficult. You first said: If the convert died while it was still day, even though a different Jew took possession of his property, the latter renders carrying prohibited, which implies that it is not necessary to say so where another Jew did not take possession of the property, for in such a case it is certainly prohibited. But this is incorrect. On the contrary, in a case where a different person did not take possession of the property, it is certainly not prohibited, for in such a case the convert’s property is ownerless and there is nobody to render carrying in the courtyard prohibited. Rav Pappa said: Say that the baraita should read as follows: Even though a different Jew did not take possession of it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can it be corrected in this manner? But doesn’t it teach: Even though he took possession of it? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If the convert died while it was still day, then even though a different Jew did not take possession of the property while it was still day but only after nightfall, since he had the possibility of taking possession of it while it was still day, the person who acquires it renders carrying prohibited. If, however, the convert died after nightfall, even though a different Jew did not take possession of his property, it does not render it prohibited to carry. The Gemara now considers the next clause of the baraita, which states: If the convert died after nightfall, even though a different Jew did not take possession of his property, carrying is not prohibited. This implies that it is not necessary to say so where another Jew did take possession of the property, for in such a case it is certainly not prohibited. But, on the contrary, where a different person takes possession of the property, he renders carrying prohibited. Rav Pappa said: Say that the baraita should read as follows: Even though a different Jew took possession of it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t the baraita teach: Even though he did not take possession of it? The Gemara explains: This is what the baraita is saying: If the convert died after nightfall, even though a different Jew took possession of his property after nightfall, since he did not have the possibility of taking possession of it while it was still day, he does not render carrying prohibited. After explaining the baraita, the Gemara proceeds to clarify the issue at hand: In any event, the first clause is teaching that the person who acquires the convert’s property renders carrying prohibited; but why does he render carrying prohibited? Let him renounce his rights in the domain like an heir. The implication then is that he does not have the option of renunciation, in contrast to the opinion of Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman replied: What is the meaning of the word prohibits that it teaches here? It means he renders carrying prohibited until he renounces his rights, but renunciation is effective. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Who is the tanna of the problematic baraitot that imply that an heir cannot renounce rights, and from which objections were brought against Rav Naḥman? It is Beit Shammai, who say that there is no renunciation of rights on Shabbat at all, even for the owner of the property. As we learned in the mishna: When may one give away rights in a domain? Beit Shammai say: While it is still day. And Beit Hillel say: Even after nightfall. With regard to this dispute itself, Ulla said: What is the reason of Beit Hillel that one may renounce rights even after nightfall? This should be considered an act of acquisition, which is prohibited on Shabbat. He explains: It is comparable to one who says: Turn toward the high-quality ones. If a person sets aside teruma from another person’s produce without the latter’s knowledge, and when the owner finds out he says: Why did you set aside this produce? Turn toward the high-quality ones, i.e., you should have gone to find better produce to use as teruma, then the teruma that was separated is considered teruma, provided there was indeed quality produce in that place. The reason is that the owner has demonstrated his retroactive acquiescence to the other person’s setting aside of teruma. Therefore, the latter is considered his agent for this purpose. The same applies to our issue. If a person intended to permit both himself and others to carry in a courtyard by means of establishing an eiruv but forgot to do so, by renouncing his rights after nightfall, he retroactively makes plain his desire that his domain should be mingled with that of his neighbors. What he then does on Shabbat is not a complete action, but merely a demonstration of his intentions. Abaye said: This explanation is unsatisfactory, as when a gentile dies on Shabbat, what connection is there to the concept: Turn toward the high-quality ones? When a gentile dies on Shabbat, his Jewish neighbors may renounce their rights in the courtyard to each other and thus render carrying in the courtyard permitted, even though such renunciation would have been ineffective prior to his passing. Consequently, it cannot be said that it works retroactively. Rather, the Gemara rejects Ulla’s explanation and states that here they disagree over the following: Beit Shammai hold that renunciation of a domain is equivalent to acquisition of a domain, and acquisition of a domain is prohibited on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel hold that it is merely withdrawal from a domain, and withdrawal from a domain seems well on Shabbat, i.e., it is permitted. As such, there is no reason to prohibit renunciation as a form of acquisition, which is prohibited as a part of a decree against conducting commerce on Shabbat.