Χορός
γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἁμὶν ἐκράνθη:
ἀθανάτων δ᾽ ἀπέχειν χέρας, οὐδέ τις ἐστί
συνδαίτωρ μετάκοινος:
Eum. 349-351

In the clause beginning with ἀθανάτων, is a form of "dei" or "chre" supposed to be inferred from context?

Hi,

Murray's text of Eumenides is here a little different : γιγνομέναισι λάχη τάδε φαμὶ κεκράνθαι͵ ἀθανάτων δ΄ ἀπέχειν χέρας͵ οὐδέ τις ἐστὶ συνδαίτωρ μετάκοινος͵ παλλεύκων δὲ πέπλων ἄμοιρος ἄκληρος ἐτύχθην.

That definitely seems more logical. I also looked At Smyth 2013 b. where it says that the infinitive is used for the third person of the imperative in legal terms. This seems like it could also be the case.

The infinitive is used for the imperative, yet is this the case here? Is it an order to the immortals!? Then, how the next sentence should be related and connected with the immortals? Notice also δ', which makes a contrast with the fate, about which the chorus speaks.

I took "de" as being coordinating, not adversative. I believe this is an order to the immortals, commanding them that they must stay away from the Furies. I have looked at Fagles', Smyth's, and Lattimore's translations of this passage, and all have either "may not..." or "must not..." in them. The infinitive by itself cannot be translated thus, and, since the text I and at least Smyth used does not have φαμὶ, there has to be some explanation of it being used independently of a leading verb. This seems to be the only logical explanation.

What could be the reason of such a command, when immediately after that it is admitted that οὐδέ τις ἐστὶ συνδαίτωρ μετάκοινος ?