The second Tosphot (R. Izhak) in Bava Batra page 18b

The second Tosphot (R. Izhak) in Bava Batra page 18b says that the original question on Rava from R. Yose holds that the bees also cause damage, and hold that Rava has to say his law also according to R. Yose. so, the gemara asks, "How can we find bees next to the border in the first place in such a way that the owner of the mustard can tell him 'since your bees are next to the border even though they cause damage, I will also put my mustard there even though they also cause damage.'" This cannot be according to Rava who says anything that causes damage has to be three handbreadths away from the border. Then Rav Papa answers, "It is a case of a buyer." That means (to Rabainu Izhak) that the mustard is next to the border and it was there when the other side of the property was sold, and now the owner of the mustard is telling the owner of the bees to go 6 handbreadths away from the border. This is now good to Rava that the mustard is next to the border because of the sale of the property on the other side, but Rava himself is talking about a case where there was no sale and there are just two people in a courtyard that has a division line and each one has to be three handbreadths away from the border. What is unclear to me is why Rabbainu Izhak changes the arrangement from the bees being next to the border to the mustard being there. Why not say that it is a case of a sale, and the owner of the mustard says, "Put your bees three cubits from the border, and I will put my mustard three cubits from the border." I think the maharam from lublin explains this in his clear explanation of this tophot, however i have not yet been able to understand him. i hope to get to the litvak beit midrash where there is a Bava Batra and Reb Aaron Kotler' ''Chidushei Reb Aaron'' to help me understand this Rabbainu Izhak [who is in fact explaining the approach of his grandfather, Rashi, who is short in his explanation of this subject.] I might mention here that Reb Aaron Kotler actually says that Rashi and Ri Migash are almost, but not quite identical in this approach. That being the case, this means that this approach of Rabbanu Izhak in our Tosphot is very close to the actual halacha in the shulchan aruch of rabbainu Yosef Karo who follows the Rambam who follows his rav, the Ri Migash. I think the answer to this question might be this: the next question of the gemara is, “If it is a case of a buyer, then why do the sages disagree? Now if the bees also do damage, then it is simple that the sages would say once the bees are there already, then the mustard must be kept away (they both cause damage to each other). Only now the original assumption has changed, and the bees are not considered to cause damage according the sages, and so it makes sense that the mustard should be kept away from them 6 handbreaths On the other hand, it is perhaps possible that the sages might say to the owner of the mustard to keep the mustard away from the bees since the bees were there first and are at the border because the yard was sold at the diving line. so again, I ask, why is it so simple that the sages might not say to the owner of the mustard to keep it away even in this case? And so, I ask again why does Tosphot change the arraignment? Later I saw that Tosphot asks this exact question. Why not leave everything in the original assumption ("hava amina'”) in its place, and just change to a case of a sale [buyer]? He answers that if the bees were there at the border by permission, then R Yose would not have allowed the mustard to come close. But on this answer, I have a question. If Tosphot means that R. Yose would have said that both need to be three handbreadths from the border, but then that is exactly what Rava says (that each one should move away from the border three handbreadths) and the answer of the buyer is fine, and there is no reason to change the "hava amina". But if Tosphot means that R. Yose would not have said the mustard would be right next to the border, then Tosphot is going back to the Mishna that said “R. Yose allows it” (meaning to be next to the border). But the question of the Gemara came from the braita that did not say, “R. Yose allows it”, but rather R Yose said that the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to move them away. There is also a slight question on Tosphot here that the main reason to change the original assumption is because of the sages that change in the next question to hold that the bees do no damage. But that is kipping ahead. _________________________________________________________________________________________ (Later I saw that תוספות asks this exact question. Why not leave everything in the original assumption ("הוה אמינא'”) in its place and just change to a case of a לוקח? He answers that if the bees were there at the border by permission, then ר' יוסי would not have allowed the mustard to come close. But on this answer, I have a question. If תוספות means that ר' יוסי would have said that both need to be three טפחים from the border, but then that is exactly what Rava says (that each one should move away from the border three טפחים) and the answer of the buyer is fine, and there is no reason to change the "הוה אמינא". But if תוספות means that ר' יוסי would not have said the mustard would be exactly next to the border, then תוספות is going back to the משנה that said “R. Yose allows it” (meaning to be next to the border). But the question of theגמרא came from the ברייתאthat did not say, “R. Yose allows it”, but rather R Yose said that the owner of the mustard can tell the owner of the bees to move them away. That can mean three .טפחים There is also a slight question on תוספות here that the main reason to change the original assumption is because of the תנא קמא that change in the next question to hold that the bees do no damage. But that is skipping ahead.) On the way back from the sea, it occurred to me what Rabbainu Izhak means. The answer of Rav Papa is that R Yose is a case of a buyer and the mustard is next to the border, and even though rabbainu izhak is changing the original assumption of the sages, even so in this approach of Rav Papa, R. Yose holds that the bees do some damage and so the bees should kept away from the border three handbreadths. He is not saying that each one, both mustard and bees should be kept three handbreadths away (the distance would be six handbreadths). Rather only the bees. The reason is that in fact we are keeping with the original assumption that “first come first served.” That since the mustard was there first, it can stay there. The second question of tosphot is if we are already changing the original assumption that the bees do damage to that the assumption that they do no damage, then why do we need the answer of a buyer? That means that Tosphot is saying the sages are changing their original assumption, but that R. Yose keeps his. so now we can answer the question how do we find such a situation where the bees are next to the border? The answer is we find it according to the sages that the owner of the bees put them there because they do no damage, and then R Yose objects that they ought to be taken away. Then tosphot anwers that if this was the case then R Yose would not have allowed the mustard to be next to the border. That means that even though the question begins with the braita, still Tosphot holds there is no difference between the mishna and the braita, R Yose holds the mustard can be nest to the border and that he can tell the owner of the bees to take them away (the second question of תוספות is if we are already changing the original assumption that the bees do damage to that the assumption that they do no damage, then why do we need the answer of a buyer? That means that תוספות is saying the חכמים are changing their original assumption but that ר' יוסי keep his. so now we can answer the question how do we find such a situation where the bees are next to the border? the answer is we find it according to the חכמים that the owner of the bees put them there because they do no damage, and then ר' יוסי objects that they ought to be taken away. Then תוספות answers that if this was the case then ר' יוסי would not have allowed the mustard to be next to the border. That means that even though the question begins with the ברייתא, still תוספות holds there is no difference between the משנה and the ברייתא. In both, ר' יוסי holds the mustard can be nest to the border and that he can tell the owner of the bees to take them away ) On the way back from the sea it occurred to me to ask about the original question and answer of Tosphot. We change the situation to that the mustard is next to the border and Tophot asks why not keep the original assumption that the bees are next to the border and that they cause damage and even so since it is a case of a sale, the mustard can be also next to the border? Tophot answers that R Yose would not have said in that case that the mustard can be also at the border. I wondered why not? If it is a case of a sale why should the mustard have to be far away? Why not say that since it is a case of a sale, then the mustard can also be next to the border? The answer I think is that the permission we get from a sale is that therefore we can find something that causes damage next to the border, but it does not imply that therefore some that causes damage can but put next to an object on the other side of the border once that object is already there.