The Gemara attempts to cite yet another proof to resolve the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. Come and hear a mishna: 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 ten handbreadths high around the hole, water may be drawn through the hole on Shabbat. If there are two balconies of this kind, one above the other, and they erected a partition for the upper balcony but they did not erect one for the lower one, they are both prohibited from drawing water, unless they establish an eiruv between them. This mishna apparently is referring to a case where the residents of the upper balcony draw water by lowering their buckets down, whereas the residents of the lower balcony hoist their bucket to the upper one and draw water from there, i.e., one balcony draws the water by lowering and the other by throwing. The mishna rules that they are both prohibited, in accordance with the opinion of Rav and contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.

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 their water by lowering.

Abaye said: Here we are dealing with a case, where the two balconies are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, and the tanna was speaking in the style of: There is no need. In other words, the mishna should be understood in the following manner: There is no need to say that if they erect a partition for the lower balcony but they did not erect one for the upper one, they are both prohibited to draw water. The reason is that since they are positioned within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another anyway.

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, while for that lower balcony, its use is demanding, as the lower balcony can draw water only by hoisting its bucket upward, the use of the hole should therefore be granted to the one whose use is convenient. This reasoning would render the hole permitted to the upper balcony and prohibited to the lower balcony. To counter this hypothetical argument, the mishna teaches us that since the upper and lower balconies are located within ten handbreadths of each other, they render it prohibited for one another.

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 Gemara infers: If there is a fixed ladder, yes, the residents of the courtyard may use the roof; if there is merely a temporary ladder, no, they are prohibited to use it. What is the reason for this distinction? Is it not that since the balcony and the public domain are situated within ten handbreadths of each other, the residents of both render it prohibited for one another, in accordance with the opinion of Abaye? Since the residents of the balcony are located within ten handbreadths of the public domain, the presence of people in the public domain renders the use of the roof prohibited for the inhabitants of the balcony. The only way for the members of the balcony to be permitted to use the roof is by means of a fixed ladder that has the status of a proper door.

Rav Pappa strongly objected to this argument, claiming that this proof can be refuted: But perhaps this applies only to a roof upon which many people place their hats [kumta] and shawls when they are in need of rest. Even if the people in the public domain are not situated within ten handbreadths of the roof, they can still use it conveniently if they wish to place light objects upon it on a temporary basis. If there was not a fixed ladder, the residents of the courtyard would not be permitted to use the roof, as it serves the public domain as well. Consequently, no proof can be adduced from here either. In summary, no compelling proof has been found either for Rav’s opinion or for Shmuel’s opinion.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: