Study Eruvin folio 84B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud attempts to cite yet another proof to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Come and hear a Mishnah: If a balcony extends over a body of water, and the residents of the balcony cut out a hole in the floor and constructed a partition 10 handbreadths high around the hole, water may be
Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with a case where the residents of the lower balcony go up to the upper balcony by means of a ladder to draw their water from there. Since they themselves are located in the upper balcony when they draw their water, both sets of residents gain access to
Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case, where the two balconies are situated within 10 handbreadths of each other, and the tanna was speaking in the style of: There is no need. In other words, the Mishnah should be understood in the following manner: There is no need to say that if they erect
Rather, the halakha is the same even if they established a partition for the upper balcony and they did not establish a partition for the lower one, despite the fact that it might have entered your mind to say the following: Since for this, the residents of the upper balcony, its use is convenient
This is similar to a teaching that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: In the case of a roof that is adjacent to a public domain, there must be a fixed ladder from the courtyard to the roof to permit the use of the roof to the residents of the courtyard. The Talmud infers: If there is a fixed ladder,