Explanation: [Abaye] did not hear the Beraisa above (26b) "when he is Mevatel his Reshus, he need not Mevatel to each one." It connotes there that R. Eliezer and Rabanan argue about this, and that Beraisa is like R. Eliezer.

Suggestion: Perhaps he asked according to Rabanan, and [Rabah] answered that he must be Mevatel [to each one]!

Rejection: If so, what was the question from the Beraisa below?!

Explanation (Rashi): You are forced to say that Rabah establishes it to discuss a caravan that camped in a valley and surrounded a Chatzer, and each man pitched his tent. When one of them died, the heirs do not have anything there;

If it were a real Chatzer, there are heirs. Since if their father were alive he would forbid, also they forbid!

Rebuttal: There was no need to give this difficult explanation. An heir forbids only if he goes to live there, for above (47a) we rule like R. Shimon;

Citation (86a - Mishnah): R. Shimon says, even if he left his house and went to spend Shabbos by his daughter in the same city, he does not forbid, for he already diverted his mind [from returning on Shabbos]. (Korban Nesan'el - Rashi holds like the Rashba and Ritva, who say that he forbids when he left on Shabbos.)

Partial defense: However, if we want to establish it like R. Meir, who said that when he went to another city, both a Nochri and a Yisrael forbid, and we say also below (72b) that a storehouse for straw, a cattle pen, a storehouse for wood, or a [Stam] storehouse, he forbids him (even though he does not live there), we must establish it to discuss a caravan that camped in a valley.

Alternatively, [it can be in a regular Chatzer]. The case is, the one who was Me'arev is the heir.

Explanation: We discuss when the father was not Me'arev, like Rashi explained, for if he was Me'arev, a Mishnah below (70b) says that if a member of the Chatzer died and left his Reshus to someone from the market (not from the Chatzer; if he died) after dark (Shabbos already came), he does not forbid;

We discuss when the heir came to live there on Shabbos. If not, Bitul is not needed, for it is like a storehouse for grain or a cattle pen, which does not forbid, like R. Yehudah says below (72b) that only a place of residence forbids;

And R. Shimon, like whom we rule above (47a), said that even if he went to spend Shabbos by his daughter in the same city, he does not forbid!

Distinction: However, if the heir dwelled in the same Chatzer, perhaps he would forbid to them his father's house when he inherited it on Shabbos, even though he does not come to live there;

Even if he was Me'arev with his colleagues (the other Bnei Chatzer) on Erev Shabbos, even so, Bitul is needed. Their Eruv does not help for the house that he inherited, like a Beraisa teaches below (70b) in our Sugya;

(Beraisa): If someone from the market died, and left his Reshus to a member of the Chatzer, [if he died] during the day (before Shabbos), he does not forbid. This is because the member of the Chatzer (the heir) was Me'arev with his colleagues;

[If he died] after dark (on Shabbos), he forbids. I.e. Eruv does not help for the Chatzer that he inherited on Shabbos.

Implied suggestion: We discuss when the heir lived with his father [and inherited him].

Rejection: If so, if they wanted to be Me'arev from before Shabbos, they could have. This is called "they [can be] Me'arev." If he gives his bread it is an Eruv, even though he was not Mezakeh to his father;

Source #1: This is like it says above (49b) that if five collected an Eruv, when they bring it to one place, one brings it for all of them;

If he took his bread and put it in the Chatzer of Shituf, it helps for all of them, like Rashi explained there, for he does Shelichus for all of them and they were Me'arev together.

Source #2: Also, a Mishnah below (72a) says that if five groups were Shoves in a hall, Beis Hillel say that one Eruv helps for all of them.

Objection: We can distinguish - there, all of them are equal in the house, this one like this one. One is not secondary to the other. Here, the son is secondary to the father. If the son gave bread, it does not help!

Answer: Still, it is totally unreasonable to distinguish.

Implied question: We can learn from above (64a). Even his Sachir or Lakit (resident worker) can give his Eruv!

Answer: There is no proof [from there] to here. Perhaps this is only for a Nochri, but not for a Yisrael.

Explanation: Even according to the opinion below (67a) that they can be Mevatel when a Nochri died on Shabbos, it can be that [here] they cannot be Mevatel, since there the same Reshus that he is Mevatel now, he had power to be Mevatel it yesterday, just it would not have worked, because the Nochri forbids;

However, here, this Reshus that he is Mevatel now, he had no power to be Mevatel it yesterday, only from when he inherited, and it is like two houses on two sides of Reshus ha'Rabim (and Nochrim made a wall around them on Shabbos), that they cannot be Mevatel, for they did not have this Reshus yesterday.

Also according to the opinion above that they cannot be Mevatel (when a Nochri died), it can be that this (heir) can be Mevatel, for an heir is the leg (continuation) of his father.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since if they wanted to be Me'arev from before Shabbos, they could not be Me'arev, also now they cannot be Mevatel.

Implied question: We should be able to learn this from the Reisha of the Seifa (two houses on two sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, and Nochrim surrounded them on Shabbos), even without "this is the Klal"!

Answer: [We cannot learn from there,] for there, they could not be Me'arev at all yesterday. Here, they could be Me'arev through rental.

Inference: Rashi discusses when the Nochri came before Shabbos, and he wants to say that they cannot be Mevatel when he died, and all the more so if he did not die, both are needed - rental and Bitul.

Rebuttal: This cannot be, based on what I explained above (66a DH Ani) that all agree that they can be Mevatel regarding "if the Nochri died on Shabbos, what is the law?"

Explanation #2: Rather, here we discuss when the Nochri came on Shabbos. If not for "this is the Klal", one might have thought that here he can be Mevatel, since the Reshus he is Mevatel was in his hand yesterday. It is unlike two houses [and Nochrim surrounded them on Shabbos].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): [Rava] challenges Rav Nachman, who said that they can be Mevatel. The [Beraisa] did not teach "except for Mevatel Reshus, and an heir." This shows that an heir cannot [be Mevatel]!

Objection: This is astounding. What is the inference?! ("Except for Mevatel Reshus" can include an heir who is Mevatel!)

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel): [Rava] challenges Shmuel, who says that he cannot be Mevatel.

This is the text of his Perush. The general rule is, whatever was forbidden for part of Shabbos [is forbidden for all of Shabbos], e.g. two houses on two sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, except for Mevatel Reshus. Even though it was forbidden for part of Shabbos, from the time he was Mevatel, the rest of Shabbos is permitted;

There is no difference whether he [is Mevatel] or an heir, since it taught "except for ha'Mevatel Reshus." We infer from this that anyone who has Reshus now can be Mevatel. Even though it was forbidden for part of Shabbos, from the time he was Mevatel, the rest of Shabbos is permitted;

He answers [the question from] the Beraisa as follows. It means "except for the law of Bitul." When the one who initially forbade is here, and now he was Mevatel his Reshus, it is permitted for the rest of Shabbos;

This excludes an heir. He did not have Reshus here at the time Shabbos came, and he could not have been Me'arev. The law of Bitul was said only when there is no Eruv, and one who cannot be Me'arev, cannot be Mevatel his Reshus. These are the words of R. Chananel.

Remark: Even though the other questions are against Rav Nachman, we are not concerned (it is not difficult) if this question is against Shmuel.

Observation: R. Chananel himself said "we challenge Rav Nachman." He connotes that "except for Mevatel Reshus" refers to two houses on opposite sides of Reshus ha'Rabim, and on Shabbos Nochrim made walls around them. There, Bitul helps;

When they were not Mevatel to each other, it says that he is forbidden the entire Shabbos.

Question: If so, why does it say "forbidden for part of Shabbos [is forbidden for all of Shabbos"? The Isur for the rest of Shabbos is not because part of Shabbos was forbidden, rather, because there was no Eruv or Bitul! - Maharsha]

Answer: According to his Perush, we discuss when they were Me'arev. Since the Eruv did not take effect at the beginning of Shabbos, it does not take effect later, when they surrounded them on Shabbos;

Similarly, "the Nochri died on Shabbos" discusses when they were Me'arev before Shabbos, and their Eruv was Batel due to the Nochri. When he dies, it does not take effect. However, Bitul helps in both cases, like it teaches "except for Bitul Reshus."

Since Bitul helps for two houses, even though he had no power to be Mevatel Reshus of this Chatzer yesterday, for it was Reshus ha'Rabim, all the more so an heir, who has power to be Mevatel. This is difficult for d'Vei Shmuel, who say that he cannot be Mevatel.

Implied question: Likewise, he could have asked against Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshes, who said above (67a) that they cannot be Mevatel regarding two houses!

Answer: Based on the answer "it means except for the law of Bitul", it does not refer to two houses, rather, to a Chatzer in which one forgot and was not Me'arev. He can be Mevatel Reshus in the middle of Shabbos.

Question: However, if we say so according to the conclusion, also according to the Makshan's opinion, there was no need to say that [the Beraisa] discusses two houses!

Even though without this, he could ask like R. Chananel explained, that "except for one who is Mevatel Reshus" connotes that anyone who has Reshus now can be Mevatel.

Explanation: This Beraisa discusses this, that a member of the Chatzer is Me'arev with his colleagues (in the Chatzer), but someone from the market (a non-member) is not Me'arev with them, even when he inherited before Shabbos;

It is not because he cannot be Me'arev with them, because he does not live there, for presumably, he is no worse due to this regarding Eruv and Bitul Reshus, since he forbids them, like it teaches "[if he died] before Shabbos, it is forbidden";

Rather, it is the usual case, that a member of the Chatzer normally is Me'arev with his colleagues, for he needs to use [things] in the Chatzer, since he lives there;

However, someone in the market is not normally Me'arev, because he does not usually use there;

This Tana holds like the opinion below (72b) that a storehouse for straw or a cattle pen forbids him.

Explanation: Rava holds that due to the convert, he is considered like an heir, who is the leg of his father;

Source: If not for this, it is not difficult at all for Rav Nachman!