Is it only in the case where [a tenant can], if he wishes, join in the ‘erub on the previous day that he can also renounce his share, but this [heir], since he could not join in the ‘erub on the previous day even if he wished, may not renounce his share, or is it possible that an heir steps into his father's place? — ‘I’, the other replied, ‘hold that he may renounce his share, but those [scholars] of the school of Samuel learned that he may not do so’. He thereupon pointed out the following objection against him: This is the general rule: Whatever is permitted during a part of the Sabbath remains permitted throughout the Sabbath and whatever is forbidden during a part of the Sabbath remains forbidden throughout the Sabbath, the only exception being the case of the man who renounced his share. ‘Whatever is permitted during a part of the Sabbath remains permitted throughout the Sabbath’, as is, for instance, the case of an ‘erub that was prepared for the purpose of carrying objects through a certain door and that door was closed up. or one that was prepared for the purpose of carrying objects through a certain window and that window was closed up. ‘This is the general rule’ includes the case of an alley whose cross-beam or side-post’ had been removed. ‘Whatever is forbidden during a part of the Sabbath remains forbidden throughout the Sabbath’, as, for instance, in the case of two houses, that were respectively situated on the two sides of a public domain which gentiles surrounded with a wall during the Sabbath. What does the expression ‘This is the general rule’, include? It includes the case of a gentile who died on the Sabbath. Now here It was stated: ‘The Only exception being the case of the man who renounced his share’, from which it follows, does it not, that only he may do so but not his heir? — Read, ‘The only exception being the law of renunciation’. He raised another objection against him: If one of the tenants of a courtyard died, having left his share to a man in the street, the latter imposes restrictions, if this occurred while it was yet day, but if it occurred after dusk he imposes no restrictions. If, however, a man in the street died, having left his share to one of the tenants of the courtyard, he imposes no restrictions, if this occurred while it was yet day, but if it occurred after dusk, he imposes restrictions. Now why should he impose restrictions? Let him renounce his share! — The ruling that he imposes restrictions applies only so long as he did not renounce his share. Come and hear: If an Israelite and a proselyte lived in one dwelling and the proselyte died while it was yet day40ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿ