Eruvin 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

If so, you have nullified the law of eruv from that entire alleyway.

For those who see them will see them divided into separate residences and will assume that they did not all renounce their rights in favor of one person; consequently, they will take objects out and carry them there without an eruv — Meiri.

He said to him [Rabbi Ḥiyya]:

They should establish

an eruv of courtyards, even though it is ineffective.

Rava said to him:

They will say: An eruv is effective in the presence of a gentile!

He said to him:

We will proclaim:

Know that our eruv is entirely ineffective, and we do not carry from our courtyards into the alleyway. As for what we carry within it, that is because it is a private domain, and not because of the eruv — Rashi.

Rava said to him: Is this

proclamation effective for children

[of future generations, who are children now]? They will see them carrying here, and they did not hear the proclamation.

Rather, Rava said: Let one of them go

[from among the residents of the alleyway],

approach him

[the gentile],

and ask him for a place

[and ask the gentile for a place in his courtyard],

and let him put something there

[the Jew]

immediately,

and it will be found that the Jew resides in the gentile’s courtyard.

And he will thereby be

that Jew

like his hired worker

[for the entire year] of the gentile,

and his seasonal laborer

[hired by him for the days of the harvest and the gathering] of the gentile.

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even his hired worker

of the gentile,

and even his seasonal laborer

of the gentile, if he is a Jew,

gives his eruv

with the residents of the courtyard or alleyway,

and that is sufficient,

and he no longer needs to rent from the gentile.

He said

he posed

to Rav Yosef, Abaye:

A Jew who has hired workers and seasonal laborers living in his house, in rooms designated for each one individually, does not cause the residents of the courtyard or alleyway to be prohibited from carrying, because their residence is not designated as theirs. For the Jew retains authority over them and can remove them from there [Mishna Berura 382:53]. But otherwise, they do cause it to be prohibited.

And he raised the following question:

If there were

in the house of the gentile who had not rented out his rights

five hired workers

and

five seasonal laborers

who were Jews [and we say that when a Jew is the hired worker or seasonal laborer of a gentile, he gives his eruv with them, and that is sufficient], and the gentile can remove them from there [whereas if they were the hired workers and seasonal laborers of a Jew, they would not cause it to be prohibited] —

what

is the law? Do those Jews, who reside in the gentile’s house, cause the same prohibition, so that it is not permitted to carry until all five give their eruv?

Do we say: Just as the Sages rendered a hired worker and seasonal laborer equivalent to owners, as a leniency, allowing them to give an eruv when the gentile does not rent out his rights, so too they are considered owners as a stringency?

Or perhaps the Sages rendered them equivalent to owners only as a leniency, but not as a stringency; rather, in all matters of eruvin, the ruling is lenient?

Rav Yosef

answered

him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

If they said that his hired worker and seasonal laborer are treated leniently

and may give an eruv in place of the gentile,

would they say that his hired worker and seasonal laborer are treated stringently,

so that all of them must give an eruv?!

The Gemara returns to the matter itself: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even his hired worker and even his seasonal laborer gives his eruv, and that is sufficient.

Rav Naḥman said: How excellent is this teaching

of Shmuel! But concerning that which

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One who drank a quarter-log of wine may not issue a ruling!

Rav Naḥman said: This teaching is not excellent!

For I, whenever I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine

[a quarter-log of wine],

my mind is not clear

[my mind is not lucid].

Rava said

to Rav Naḥman:

What is the reason that the Master said this,

that this teaching is excellent and fitting, whereas that teaching is not?

And yet,

Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: What is the meaning of that which is written

“And one who pursues prostitutes

[the word is written in full, unlike its usual spelling in Scripture — Rashi in Proverbs]

will squander wealth”?

This is to tell you:

Anyone who says: This teaching is beautiful

[“prostitutes: this one is beautiful,” and I will learn it and engage in it so that it will be firmly acquired by me],

and

a teaching

is not beautiful —

squanders the wealth of Torah!

He said to him

Rav Naḥman to Rava:

I retract my position

[I recant]. That is, I will no longer say this.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who is under the influence of wine may not pray.

But if he prayed, his prayer is a prayer.

A drunk may not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination!

What are the circumstances of one who is under the influence of wine, and what are the circumstances of a drunk?

And we explain:

This is like that incident involving Rabbi Abba bar Shumani and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya of Difti, who were taking leave of one another at the bridge of the Yufati River

[they were taking leave of one another on the bridge of the Yufati River].

They said

to one another:

Let each of us say a matter that the other has not heard

[let each one say something that his fellow has not heard]. This was because

Mari bar the son of Rav Huna’s son, who was the son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, said: A person should take leave of his fellow only after discussing a matter of halakha, since through this he will remember him.

One of them began and said: What are the circumstances of one who is under the influence of wine, and what are the circumstances of a drunk?

One who is under the influence of wine: Anyone who is capable of speaking before a king.

A drunk: Anyone who is incapable of speaking before a king.

The other began and said: One who takes possession of the property of a convert

—for it is a remarkable matter, and people wonder at him because it came to him without exertion, and it is subject to the evil eye; therefore, it endures only through a mitzva—

what should he do so that it will endure in his possession?

He should purchase a Torah scroll with it

with part of the property, and in the merit of this the remainder will endure in his possession.