Eruvin 64a — the Talmud in English

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

For those who see them see them divided in their dwellings, and think that they did not all renounce their domains in favor of one person, and they will carry out and carry there without an eruv—Meiri.

He said to him [R. Hiyya]:

that they should make an eruv of courtyards,

an eruv of courtyards, even though it is not effective.

Rava said to him:

They will say: an eruv is effective in the place of a gentile!

He said to him:

we proclaim:

know that our eruv is not effective at all, and we do not carry out from our courtyards into the alleyway. And what we carry within it is because it is a private domain, and not because of the eruv, Rashi.

Rava said to him: Does this

proclamation help for children [

for future generations, who are children now]?! For 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],

and draw near to him [

to the gentile]

and ask him for a place [

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

and let him place something there [

the Jew]

some object,

and it is found that the Jew resides in the gentile’s courtyard. And

that Jew thereby becomes

that Jew through this

like his hired worker [

[hired] for the entire year] of the gentile,

and his day-worker [

[hired with him for the days of reaping and harvesting] of the gentile.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: even his hired worker

of the gentile,

and even his day-worker

of the gentile, if he is a Jew—

places his eruv

with the residents of the courtyard or alleyway,

and that suffices,

and he no longer needs to rent from the gentile.

Said

asked

Abaye of Rav Yosef:

A Jew who has in his house hired workers and day-workers who reside in his house in rooms designated for each one separately, they do not prohibit the residents of the courtyard or alleyway, because their dwelling is not designated for them. For the Jew has authority over them and can remove them from there [Mishna Berura 382:53]. But otherwise, they prohibit.

And he asks him:

if there were there

in the house of the gentile who did not rent out his domain

five of his hired workers

and

five of his day-workers

Jewish [and we say that a Jew who is the hired worker and day-worker of a gentile places his eruv with them, and that suffices], and the gentile can remove them from there [whereas if they were the hired workers and day-workers of a Jew, they would not prohibit]—

what is the law

that those Jews should prohibit, since they dwell with a gentile, and it should not be permitted to carry until all five place their eruv?

Do we say: just as the Sages made a hired worker and a day-worker like owners, to be lenient and to permit placing an eruv when the gentile does not rent out his domain, they are likewise owners to be stringent?

Or perhaps the Sages made them like owners only for leniency, but not for stringency; rather, everything concerning eruvin is for leniency?

Said

astonished

to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

If they said that his hired worker and day-worker are [like him] for leniency

and may place an eruv in the place of a gentile,

will they say that his hired worker and day-worker are [like him] for stringency,

so that all of them must place an eruv?!

The body of the matter: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: even his hired worker and even his day-worker places his eruv, and that suffices.

Rav Nahman said: How excellent is this teaching

of Shmuel! But concerning that which

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: one who drank a reviit of wine may not issue a halakhic ruling!

Rav Nahman said: This teaching is not excellent!

For I, whenever I have not drunk a reviit of wine [

a reviit of wine],

my mind is not clear [

my mind is not clear].

Rava said to him

to Rav Nahman:

For what reason did the Master say this,

that this teaching is excellent and fine, while that teaching is not?

But

did not Rabbi Aha bar Hanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written

“And one who herds prostitutes [

written in full, unlike the rest of Scripture—Rashi in Proverbs]

will lose wealth”?

This is to tell you:

whoever says: this teaching is fine [

prostitutes: “this one is fine,” and I shall know it and engage in it so that it will remain with me].

And

a teaching

this one is not fine—

he loses the wealth of Torah!

Rav Nahman said to him

Rav Nahman to Rava:

I retract from my words [

I retract from them]. That is: I will no longer say so.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: one who is intoxicated may not pray.

And if he prayed, his prayer is a prayer.

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

What is the definition of one who is intoxicated, and what is the definition of a drunkard?

And we explain:

Like that incident involving Rabbi Abba bar Shumani and Rav Manshya bar Yirmeya from Difti, who were taking leave of one another on the bridge of the Yuvti River [

they were taking leave of one another on the bridge of the Yuvti River],

they said

to one another:

let each one of us say a matter that his fellow has not heard [

let each one say a matter that the other has not heard]. Because

Mari bar the son of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, said: a person should take leave of his fellow only with a matter of halakha, for through this he remembers him.

One opened and said: What is the definition of one who is intoxicated, and what is the definition of a drunkard?

One who is intoxicated: anyone who is capable of speaking before the king.

A drunkard: anyone who is incapable of speaking before the king.

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

for it is an astonishing matter, and people wonder at him because it came to him without labor, and the evil eye rules over it; therefore it endures only through a mitzva—

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

He should purchase a Torah scroll with them

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