Study Eruvin folio 84A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בני עלייה. ומאי קרו לה מרפסת? דקסלקי במרפסת, אלמא: כל לזה בשלשול ולזה בזריקה — נותנין אותו לזה שבשלשול!
It is referring to the residents of an upper story above the balcony; and if so, why do we call the upper story a balcony? Because the residents of the upper story ascend and descend to and from their apartments by way of the balcony. From here the Talmud infers: With regard to any place that can be used by one set of residents only by lowering an object down to it and by another set of residents only by throwing an object on top of it, we grant Shabbat use of it to those who can use it by lowering, as the residents of the upper story who use the area 10 handbreadths high do so by means of lowering. Apparently, the Mishnah supports Shmuel and presents a difficulty to Rav.
כדאמר רב הונא: לאותן הדרים במרפסת. הכי נמי: לאותן הדרין במרפסת.
The Talmud rejects this argument: As Rav Huna said with regard to a different issue discussed in a subsequent Mishnah, that the tanna is referring to those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony rather than those who live in an upper story; here too, the tanna is speaking of those who live in apartments that open directly onto the balcony. In this case, the use of an area 10 handbreadths high is convenient for the residents of the balcony, as it is on their level; whereas its use is relatively inconvenient for the residents of the courtyard. Consequently, the right to use this area is granted to the residents of the balcony.
אי הכי, אימא סיפא: פחות מכאן — לחצר. אמאי? לזה בפתח ולזה בפתח הוא!
The Talmud raises an objection: If so, say the next clause of the Mishnah: Anything that is lower than this, i.e., lower than 10 handbreadths, its use belongs to the courtyard. But why should this be the halakha? This is similar to a case of residents of two courtyards who have equally convenient access to a certain area. The residents of this courtyard access the area through one entrance, and the residents of that courtyard access the area through another entrance. In our case, the use of the area is equally convenient for the inhabitants of both the balcony and the courtyard; why should the latter be granted exclusive right of use?