Explanation (Ri): This "Hachi Nami Mistabra" (presumably, this is correct) is only according to Shmuel, who holds in our Sugya that one forbids to his friend through air (i.e. when he stands outside);

However, according to Rav, who holds that one does not forbid to his friend through air, it is only to the Chatzer, and they are permitted.

Question: Why did we need to infer "presumably, this is correct" from the Seifa of the Seifa? From "less than this (10) is to the Chatzer" taught regarding Chulyah of a pit, we could have inferred that even according to Shmuel, it means even to the Chatzer!

Source: The Chulyah of a pit, or a rock, that it was taught that they are 10 tall, you are forced to say that the height of the Chulya is 10 Tefachim from the edge of the pit, i.e. the ground of the Chatzer, since it is considered through throwing to the Bnei Chatzer;

If so, when it taught "less than this is to the Chatzer", that the Chulya is Mashehu less than 10, if so from the top of the Chulya until the bottom of the pit is more than 10...

And if so, it is not only for the Bnei Chatzer, for also for the Bnei Chatzer it is through lowering, like for the Bnei Aliyos, for we should not distinguish between lowering 10 and lowering 20!

Answer: In any case according to Shmuel it should not have taught "even for the Chatzer" regarding Chulyah of a pit, for granted, the bottom of the pit is even for the Chatzer...

In any case, use on the rock and the top of the Chulya is only for the Chatzer according to Shmuel.

However, according to Rav, for all of them it should have taught "even for the Chatzer."

Therefore, [the Gemara] brings from the Seifa of the Seifa that also according to Shmuel, there "to the Chatzer" means even for the Chatzer, both regarding the rock and the bottom of the pit, just like we must say for Rav regarding "less than this to the Chatzer."

Question: Also a pit is to the people of the balcony through lowering, and to the people of the Chatzer through throwing and lowering;

It says below (85a) "since it is to this through throwing and lowering, and to this through lowering alone, it is like to this through throwing and to this through an opening"!

Answer #1: Below it discusses throwing horizontally, which is through air, but throwing vertically and lowering is no better (inconvenient) to Rav than lowering alone.

Rebuttal (Ri): It is unreasonable to distinguish like this. If Rav held that one forbids to his friend through air, he would not distinguish between throwing vertically to throwing horizontally!

Source: R. Elazar asked him below (85b) "you taught that if one uses through throwing and the other through lowering [both are forbidden!" Rav did not deny this, just he said that he discusses a different case.]

Answer #2 (Ri): What it says below (85a) "here is different, since it is to this through throwing and lowering, and to this it is through lowering alone, it is like to this through throwing and to this through an opening", this is a mere Dichuy;

I.e. we could reject and say that according to Rav, one forbids to his friend merely through air, when both of them throw through air;

However, according to the conclusion, Rav's reason is because one does not forbid to his friend through air, we do not say that when it is to this through throwing and lowering, and to this through lowering alone, it is like to this through throwing and to this through an opening;

Rather, when it is to this through throwing and lowering, and to this through lowering alone, it is like to this through throwing and to this through lowering, and we do not distinguish between them like the Makshan thought below.

Answer #3: Below, when it is to this through throwing and lowering, there are two kinds of throwing - throwing horizontally, and throwing vertically;

However, when it is to this through lowering alone, and to this through throwing vertically and lowering, or through throwing horizontally and lowering, both of them are forbidden.

Explanation: This is something that one may take on Shabbos. It does not diminish. We conclude that we discuss Tevel Peros, which one may not take on Shabbos.

Implied question: This should be like earth [filling a furrow] that he is destined to clear it away. It says above (79a) that [the earth] is not a Chatzitzah (we do not consider it to fill the furrow. We should say the same about Tevel Peros!)

Answer: Since he is destined to clear it away, it is not Mevatel it the Mechitzah separating two Chatzeros;

However, to diminish a height of 10 and to make it like an opening to a balcony, since it is not taken on Shabbos, it diminishes, even though he is destined to clear it away;

This is like one who turned over a basin [and put it next to a wall (77a)]. It diminishes.

Assertion: The text does not say "Tanan", for it is not a Mishnah anywhere. Rather, it says Ta Shma.

Note: Maharsha says that the following is a new Dibur. It pertains to Amud B.

Version #1 (Rashi): [Some texts say] "and similarly, two balconies." The text should not say "and similarly."

Version #2 (R. Chananel): The text says so. It refers to the Reisha. [A Mishnah] teaches below (87b) "a balcony above... [and similarly, two balconies...]"

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Granted, according to Rav it mentions that they made for the top... to teach that when this uses through throwing, and this uses through lowering, both forbid;

However, now that [according to Shmuel] we discuss within 10, what is the difference between the top and the bottom? So Rashi explained.

Observation: Also according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who establishes when the bottom people go through the top to draw, it teaches a big Chidush;

Even though [Rav Nachman] said above (59b) that a ladder has the law of a Mechitzah, and he does not forbid, here, to be considered convenient usage, like when this one is through lowering and this one is through lowering, they forbid.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is not surrounded by a Chatzer on every side. Rather, [on] one side is Reshus ha'Rabim;

A Stam roof is 10 tall, and there is a balcony there that is not 10 taller than Reshus ha'Rabim, and from it they ascend to the roof, and [the roof] is less than 10 above [the balcony]

Inference: Even though the balcony is like an opening, and it is not proper for people of Reshus ha'Rabim, since the balcony and Reshus ha'Rabim are within 10 of each other, they forbid each other.

Source: If not for this (they are within 10 of each other), why [do they forbid each other]?

Explanation #1 (cont.): The case is, the balcony has a wall around it above, and has an opening of 10 Amos to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Source: If it did not have a wall around it, since it is not 10 tall, it would be a Karmelis. A ladder would not help, since he takes from Karmelis to Reshus ha'Yachid.

Question #1 (Ri): It is difficult to establish it when there is a balcony between Reshus ha'Rabim and the roof, for it does not mention a balcony here at all!

Question #2: Also, if the balcony has a wall around it, how do people of Reshus ha'Rabim forbid it and the roof?

And if the balcony does not have a wall around it, it is a Karmelis, and the roof is breached 10 Amos!

And if we discuss without a balcony, and the roof is within 10 [of the ground], if so it is a Karmelis!

Explanation #2 (Ri): We properly discuss without a balcony. People of Reshus ha'Rabim use it because it is not 10 tall, and it is not totally breached;

The case is, the sides of the roof are 10 tall, or the entire roof is below 10, and it has a Maik'ah (a wall around it) and it is open to Reshus ha'Rabim 10 Amos or less;

We say that it needs a fixed ladder to permit it, but without a ladder, people of the Chatzer do not regularly use it, and people of Reshus ha'Rabim, who regularly use it, are Mevatel from it the status of Dirah;

They make it a Karfef, and it is forbidden to carry from it to the Chatzer according to Rabanan;

Also according to R. Shimon, Kelim that were Shoves in the house, it is forbidden to take them from the Chatzer to the roof, since [the roof] became a Karfef.

Implied question: This should be like a Chatzer or Mavuy that have an opening [up to] 10 [Amos] to Reshus ha'Rabim. People of Reshus ha'Rabim do not forbid it!

Answer: There, there are absolute residents, and people of Reshus ha'Rabim cannot be Mevatel them.

Explanation #2 (cont.): We say that perhaps it is through hats and turbans. People of Reshus ha'Rabim regularly leave them there when they are tired, even though it is 10 tall, since it is a light load, like Rashi explained, and it is a convenient use.

Implied question: This should be like a Reshus between two Chatzeros. It has a opening to one, and the other uses it through throwing!

Answer: A Chatzer is not used for hats, rather, for heavy Kelim.

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): A roof next to Reshus ha'Rabim and it is low within 10, it needs a fixed ladder to permit it;

Since inside [the house] is Reshus ha'Yachid, it is unlike other cases of Karmelis, and a fixed ladder in the Chatzer weakens the power of Karmelis in the Chatzer, and it is not a proper Karmelis;

[The Gemara] infers that only a fixed ladder [permits it], but not a temporary ladder;

Even though through a temporary ladder it is more convenient for the Chatzer than for people of Reshus ha'Rabim, for people of Reshus ha'Rabim do not have even a temporary ladder, and even so, since they are within 10, they forbid.

Rav Papa rejects this. Also people of Reshus ha'Rabim have convenient use, for hats and turbans. A person's head is close to the roof, and it is convenient use without a ladder at all, like for people of the Chatzer with a ladder;

Therefore a fixed ladder is needed to permit an inferior Karmelis like this, that its interior is Reshus ha'Yachid.