בור שבין שתי חצירות מופלגת מכותל זה ארבעה ומכותל זה ארבעה זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא ורב יהודה דידיה אמר אפילו קניא
If a cistern in a small alleyway between two courtyards is separated by four handbreadths from the wall of one courtyard and by four handbreadths from the wall of another courtyard, the resident of this courtyard may extend a ledge of minimal size from his window in the direction of the cistern, as a sign that he is not using the domain of the other, and he may subsequently proceed to draw water from the cistern through the window. And the resident of the other courtyard may likewise extend a ledge of minimal size and draw water from the cistern through his widow. And Rav Yehuda himself said: An actual ledge is unnecessary, as it is enough even if one merely extends a simple reed.
אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב יהודה דשמואל היא דאי דרב הא אמר אין אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda, that some minimal sort of adjustment is required, is in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, Shmuel. Since if he holds in accordance with the opinion of his other teacher, Rav, this would present a difficulty, as didn’t Rav say: One person does not render it prohibited for another person to perform an action by way of the air, if the place he is using is four handbreadths away from him? Consequently, not even a reed is required.
ודשמואל מהיכא אילימא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל גג הסמוך לרשות הרבים צריך סולם קבוע להתירו דילמא כדרב פפא
The Gemara asks: And from where is it ascertained that this is the opinion of Shmuel? If you say we learn it from that teaching which Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a low roof adjacent to a public domain, there must be a fixed ladder from the courtyard to the roof in order to permit the use of the roof to the residents of the courtyard, it might be inferred from here that the people in the public domain render it prohibited to use the roof because they can use it through the air, by throwing. However, this proof is inconclusive. Perhaps, this halakha can be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: Here we are dealing with a roof upon which people in the public domain place their hats and shawls when in need of rest. That would mean that this halakha does not involve use of the airspace at all.
אלא מהא זה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא וזה מוציא זיז כל שהוא וממלא טעמא דאפיק הא לא אפיק אמרינן אדם אוסר על חבירו דרך אויר
Rather, Shmuel’s opinion is learned from this statement: This one, the resident of one courtyard, may extend a ledge of minimal size and draw water from the cistern through his window; and the resident of the other courtyard may also extend a ledge of minimal size and draw water through his window. The reason for this halakha is that one extended a ledge, but if he did not extend a ledge, we say that one person renders it prohibited for another person by way of the air. One resident would be prohibited to draw water from the cistern due to the other resident, who has equal access to the water in the cistern by way of the air.
ודרב מהיכא אילימא מהא שתי גזוזטראות זו למעלה מזו עשו מחיצה לעליונה ולא עשו מחיצה לתחתונה שתיהן אסורות עד שיערבו
The Gemara asks: And from where is the opinion of Rav learned, that one person does not render it prohibited for another by way of the air? If you say it is derived from that which was taught in a mishna: If two balconies extend over a body of water, one above the other, and the residents erected a partition for the upper balcony but they did not erect a partition for the lower one, residents of both balconies are prohibited to draw water, unless they established an eiruv together.
ואמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בסמוכה אבל במופלגת ארבעה עליונה מותרת ותחתונה אסורה
The Gemara continues. And Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught that the residents of one balcony render it prohibited for the residents of the other balcony to draw water only when one balcony is near the other, i.e., horizontally within four handbreadths. But if each balcony is four handbreadths removed from the other, so that each can use the other only by means of the air, the upper balcony is permitted to draw water, while the lower one is prohibited to do so. This teaching indicates that one person does not render it prohibited for use by another by way of the air.
דלמא שאני הכא דכיון דלזה בזריקה ושלשול ולזה בשלשול לחודיה כלזה בזריקה ולזה בפתח דמי
However, this proof is inconclusive, as perhaps it is different here, since for the residents of this lower balcony, their use of the area is relatively inconvenient, as they can use it only by way of hoisting and lowering. The residents of the lower balcony must hoist the bucket from the lower balcony to the upper one before lowering it from there to draw water; whereas for the residents of the other one, i.e., the upper balcony, use of the water is convenient, as they can utilize it by way of lowering alone. Consequently, this case is similar to that of an area that can be used by the residents of one courtyard only by throwing and by the residents of another courtyard as an entrance. Since it is easier for the upper balcony to draw water, the lower balcony does not render it prohibited for the upper balcony in this particular case.
אלא מהא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב שני בתים ושלש חורבות ביניהם זה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה וזה משתמש בסמוך שלו על ידי זריקה
Rather, we can learn that this is the opinion of Rav from that teaching, which Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said that Rav said: If there are two houses with three ruins between them, the resident of this house may use the ruin adjacent to him by means of throwing into the ruin through his windows that open out to that ruin, and the resident of the other house may use the ruin adjacent to him by means of throwing through his windows,