Study Eruvin folio 71A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 carryi
The Talmud 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 no
Rav Pappa said: Say that the baraita should read as follows: Even though a different Jew did not take possession of it. The Talmud raises a difficulty: How can it be corrected in this manner? But doesn’t it teach: Even though he took possession of it?
The Talmud 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 da
The Talmud 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 pr