Eruvin

‘If so,1 are you not abolishing the law of ‘erub in that alley?’ — ‘They might prepare an ‘erub’.2 ‘Would It not then be said that an ‘erub is effective even where a heathen is a resident in the place?’ — ‘An announcement might be made’.3 ‘An announcement for the children?’4 — ‘Rather’, said Raba, ‘let one of them5 persuade him6 and borrow a place from him on which he shall put down something, so that7 he assumes the status of his hired labourer or retainer concerning whom Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: Even his8 hired labourer and even his retainer9 may contribute his share to the ‘erub10 and this alone is sufficient.11 Abaye asked R. Joseph: What is the ruling in there were12 five hired labourers13 or live retainers?14 — The other replied: If the Rabbis have laid down that one's hired labourer or retainer is regarded as a householder in order that the law might be relaxed,15 would they also maintain that a hired labourer or retainer has a similar status in order that the law might be restricted? 16 [Reverting to] the main text: ‘Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel: Even his hired labourer and even his retainer may contribute his share to the ‘erub, and this alone is sufficient R. Nahman observed: How excellent a ruling is this. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: He who has drunk a quarter of a log17 of wine must not give a legal decision. This ruling’ observed R. Nahman, ‘is not a very fine one, because in my own case, before I drink a quarter of a log of wine my mind is not clear’. Said Raba to him:18 Why did the Master speak in such a manner?19 Did not R. Aha b. Hanina in fact state, ‘What is the exposition of the Scriptural text: But he that keepeth company with harlots loses his substance?20 Whosoever says: "This ruling is a fine one21 or "That ruling is not a fine one" loses the substance of the Torah’? — ‘I withdraw’, the other replied. Rabbah son of R. Huna ruled: One who is under the influence of drink must not pray, but if he did pray his prayer is regarded as a proper one. An intoxicated man must not pray, and if he did pray his prayer is an abomination. How are we to understand the expression of ‘One who is under the influence of drink’, and how that of ‘an intoxicated man’? — As follows. When R.22 Abba23 b. Shumani24 and R. Menashya b. Jeremiah of Difti25 were taking leave from each other at the ford of the river Yopati they suggested, ‘Let each one of us say something that the other has never heard before, for Mari son of R. Huna26 laid down: The best form of taking leave of a friend is to tell him27 a point of the halachah, because he would remember him for it’. ‘What is to be understood’, one of them began, ‘by "one who is under the influence of drink" and what by "an intoxicated man"? The former is one who is able to speak in the presence of a king,28 the latter is one who is unable to speak in the presence of a king’. ‘What’, the other began, ‘should he who took possession of the property of a proselyte29 do that he shall be worthy of retaining it? Let him purchase with it30 a scroll of the Law’.31 R. Shesheth said: Even their rights, all are forbidden to carry any objects from their houses into the alley and vice versa, and that only within the alley, which on account of the renunciation assumed the status of a private domain, is the movement of objects permitted. ignorant of the terms of the announcement, would naturally assume that an ‘erub is effective even where a heathen is one of the residents. ‘erub for the alley. Since, it is asked, in respect of enabling the house in which he lives to be joined with the others in one ‘erub he is regarded as its householder, is he equally regarded as a householder the absence of whose share from an ‘erub restricts the use of the entire alley? labourer or retainer cannot be regarded as a householder wherever he failed to contribute to the ‘erub of the alley.