Bava Batra page 18 Tosphot has a question on Rabbainu Izhak

Bava Batra page 18 Tosphot has a question on Rabbainu Izhak that he thinks even is enough to require us to learn the sugia according to Rabainu Tam. The question is that according to R Ihzhak one is required to make a distinction between the case of a tub of linen next to vegetables and the tree next to a pit. I would like to explain this question here. But before I do, I want to mention that this distinction is not as arbitrary as it sounds. After all, the mishnayot in this chapter make no distinction between when the object that causes damage was put there. In all cases except for the tree, it says you have to remove the object that causes damage (and it does not make any distinction about when the object was put there). And even according to the version of R''T which is “rather Ravina said” there still could be a difference. For that is the version of the Ri Migash, and yet he too makes a distinction. He holds in the case of the tree, it can stay there if it was there first, but in all other cases the thing that causes damage has to be removed once something is put there that can be damaged. Now let me say what the original question on Rabinu Izhak was. It is that we keep with the idea of a sale and that even in the case of sale the sages say to keep the thing that causes damage away from the border while in the case of a tree, if it was there first, it can stay. To rabainu Tam this is no question because according to him, all the cases in this chapter are equal. In all of them, if the object that causes damage was there first, it can stay. I also want to mention that to both Rabainu Tam and Rabainu Izhak it is hard to understand why the gemara did not ask from the sages on Rava right away; and also, why the Gemara did not ask why the sages said the if the tree was there first it can stay while in no other case do the sages say this.______________________________________________________________בבא בתרא page י''ח תוספות has a question on רבינו יצחק that he thinks even is enough to require us to learn the סוגיה according to רבינו תם. The question is that according to ר''י one is required to make a distinction between the case of a tub of linen next to vegetables and the tree next to a pit. I would like to explain this question here. But before I do, I want to mention that this distinction is not as arbitrary as it sounds. After all, the משניות in this chapter (לא יחפר, פרק שני בבא בתרא)make no distinction between when the object that causes damage was put there. In all cases except for the tree, it says you have to remove the object that causes damage (and it does not make any distinction about when the object was put there). And even according to the version of ר''ת which is אלא אמר רבינא there still could be a difference. For that is the version of the ר''י מיגש, and yet he too makes a distinction. He holds in the case of the tree, it can stay there if it was there first, but in all other cases the thing that causes damage has to be removed once something is put there that can be damaged. Now let me say what the original question on ר''י was. It is that we keep with the idea of a sale and that even in the case of sale the חכמים say to keep the thing that causes damage away from the border while in the case of a tree, if it was there first, it can stay. To ר''ת this is no question because according to him, all the cases in this chapter are equal. In all of them, if the object that causes damage was there first, it can stay. I also want to mention that to both ר''תandר''י it is hard to understand why the גמראdid not ask from the חכמים on רבא right away; and also, why the גמרא did not ask why the חכמים said the if the tree was there first it can stay while in no other case do the חכמים say this.

רבינו תם בבא בתרא י''ח ע''ב

לפי רבינו תם, רבא מחזיק כמו החכמים, לא כמו ר' יוסי. לפיכך, הדרך שבה ר''ת מבין את רבינא היא שרבא מחזיק כמו הרבנן שרק כשיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק, בעל החפץ שיכול לגרום נזק חייב להרחיק אותו מהגבול. הוויכוח בין החכמים לר' יוסי הוא על הרעיון שבעל הדבורים עשה משהו מעט לא תקין בכך ששם אותן ליד הגבול, ולכן בעל החרדל יכול לעשות את אותו הדבר. החכמים חולקים על כך, ואומרים שאף על פי שבעל הדבורים עשה משהו פסול מעט, אין זה סיבה להתיר שהחרדל יהיה גם בגבול. במקום זאת, החרדל חייב להיות ששה טפחים מהגבול. ואז מגיעה שאלת הגמרא ש"אם כן, אז למה ר' יוסי מסכים לגבי הגיגית והירקות?" כלומר לפי ר''ת, שהגמרא סובר שאין סיבה שהחכמים ור' יוסי יחלקו על הטעם של "מעט פסול", ובמקום זה, הטעם שמתיר ר' יוסי את החרדל בגבול הוא שצריך להרחיק מהגבול את הדבר שיכול להינזק. אז עכשיו, יש שאלה מהאמבטיה (משרה) על ר' יוסי שבמקרה כזה צריך להזיז גם את הירקות, לא את הגיגית. אבל עכשיו אפשר לשאול כיון שר' יוסי מחזיק ב"חיציו" ומסכים עם החכמים בכל המקרים בפרק זה אלא במקום שבו נאמר בגלוי שהוא חולק, אז באיזה נימוק חולקים כאן החכמים ור' יוסי? יכול להיות שההבדל הוא אם שמת את הדבר הגורם לנזק ליד הגבול כששום דבר אחר לא היה בצד השני, ואז השכן שם משהו שיכול להינזק. במקרה כזה, ר' יוסי היה אומר שהדבר שיכול לגרום נזק יכול להישאר שם כי באותה נקודה הבעלים לא עושה פעולה שיכולה לגרום נזק. הוא פסיבי בשלב הזה. זה לא "החצים שלו". מאידך היו אומרים חכמים שעליו להסיר את החפץ כיון שכל המשניות ברורות. אם יש משהו שיכול להינזק בצד השני, אז יש להזיז את החפץ שגורם לנזק. (הערה 1) כלומר, גם אם אותו חפץ שני הגיע לשם לאחר שהדבר אבל תוספות לא מחזיקים ככה. הם קובעים שאין הבדל בין המקרה של עץ ובור למקרה של הגיגית והירקות. כלומר שבשני המקרים, אם הדבר הגורם נזק היה קודם, יכול להישאר גם לאחר שבא אחר כך החפץ שיכול להינזק, וכך לדעת חכמים, לא ר' יוסי. אבל יש תשובה אחרת. אפשר גם שר' יוסי שהחרדל והדבורים צריכים להיות שניהם שלושה טפחים מהגבול, בעוד שחכמים מחזיקים שהחרדל צריך להיות במרחק ששה טפחים. זה פירוש ר' יוסי שאמר החרדל מותר. זה אומר שמותר להיות קרוב יותר לגבול ממה שאמרו החכמים. מכיוון שגם הדבורים וגם החרדל פוגעים זה בזה, שניהם חייבים להיות במרחק שלושה טפחים. (הערה 1) במילים אחרות, לחכמים ברגע שיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק, הם מחזיקים אתה לא יכול לשים שום דבר בצד שלך שיכול לגרום נזק. ר' יוסי אומר קרוב לאותו דבר, אלא שהנזק שהוא גורם צריך להיות מקרה של חיציו, כלומר נזק על ידי פעולה ישירה. (לפי הרמב''ן כל המזיקים בפרק זה הם החיצים שלו על פי ר' יוסי. לכן אין חילוק בינו ולחכמים חוץ ממקום שכתוב כן בפירוש. )

Rabbainu Tam in Bava Batra page 18b

Rabbainu Tam holds that Rava is holding like the sages, not like R. Jose. (However you can explain the version that says, “Rather, Ravina said” to mean that Rava holds like R. Jose but only with difficulty.) Thus the way Rabainu Tam understands Ravina is that Rava holds like the Rababan that only when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged is the owner of the object that can cause damage must keep it way from the border. The argument between the sages and R. Jose is about the idea that the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper by putting them by the border, and so the owner of the mustard can do the same thing. The sages disagree with this, and say that the owner of the bees did something slightly improper, that is no reason to allow the mustard also to be by the border. Rather, the mustard must be 6 handbreadths from the border. Then comes the question of the Gemara that, “If so, then why does R. Jose not disagree about the tub and vegetables?” That means according to R Tam, that the Gemara thinks there is no reason for the sages and R. Jose to disagree about the reason of "slightly improper", and that instead of that, the reason R. Jose allows the mustard by the border is that the thing that can be damaged should be moved away from the border. Then now, there is a question from the tub on R. Jose that in that case, also the vegetables ought to be moved, not the tub. But now we can ask since R. Jose holds with “his arrows” and agrees with the sages in all the cases in this chapter except where it says openly that he disagrees, then in what reasoning the sages and R Jose disagree here? I might have thought that the difference is if you have put the thing that causes damage next to the border when nothing else was on the other side, and then the neighbor put there something that can be damaged. In that case, R Jose would say the thing that can causes damage can remain there because that that point the owner is not doing an action that can cause damage. He is passive at that point. It is not his arrows. On the other hand, the sages would say he must remove the object as all the mishnayot are clear. If there something that can be damaged on the other side, then the object that causes damage must be moved. (note 1)That means, even if that second object came there after the thing that causes damage was already there. But Tosphot does not hold this way. He holds that there is no difference between the case of a tree and a pit and the case of the tub and vegetables. That means that in both cases. if the thing that causes damage was there first, it can stay even after the object that can be damaged came later and this is the opinion of the sages. But it is also possible that R. Jose holds that the mustard and the bees must both be three handbreadths from the border, while the sages hold the mustard must be 6 handbreadths away. This is the meaning of R. Jose that said the mustard is allowed. That means to be allowed to be nearer to the border than what the sages said. Since both the bee and mustard damage each other they must both be three handbreadths’ away. (note 1) In other words to the sages once anything is on the other side of the border that can be damaged, they hold you cannot put anything on your side that can cause damage. R Jose say closely to the same thing except that the damage that it causes has to be a case of his arrows, i.e. damage by a direct action ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ רבינו תםholds that רבא is holding like theחכמים , not like ר' יוסי. (However you can explain the version that says, “אלא אמר רבינא” to mean that רבא holds like ר' יוסי.) Thus, the way ר''ת understands רבינא is that רבא holds like the רבנן that only when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged, the owner of the object that can cause damage must keep it away from the border. The argument between the חכמים and ר' יוסי is about the idea that the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper by putting them by the border, and so the owner of the mustard can do the same thing. The חכמים disagree with this, and say that even though the owner of the bees did something slightly improper, that is no reason to allow the mustard also to be by the border. Rather, the mustard must be 6 טפחים from the border. Then comes the question of the גמרא that “If so, then why does ר' יוסי agree about the tub and vegetables?” That means according to ר''ת, that the גמרא thinks there is no reason for the חכמים and ר' יוסי to disagree about the reason of "slightly improper", and that instead of that, the reason ר' יוסי allows the mustard by the border is that the thing that can be damaged should be moved away from the border. Then now, there is a question from the tub on ר' יוסי that in that case, also the vegetables ought to be moved, not the tub. But now we can ask since ר' יוסי holds with “his arrows” and agrees with the חכמים in all the cases in this chapter except where it says openly that he disagrees, then in what reasoning the חכמים and ר' יוסי disagree here? I might have thought that the difference is if you have put the thing that causes damage next to the border when nothing else was on the other side, and then the neighbor put there something that can be damaged. In that case, ר' יוסי would say the thing that can cause damage can remain there because that that point the owner is not doing an action that can cause damage. He is passive at that point. It is not "his arrows". On the other hand, the sages would say he must remove the object as all the משניות are clear. If there something that can be damaged on the other side, then the object that causes damage must be moved. That means, even if that second object came there after the thing that causes damage was already there. But תוספות does not hold this way. He holds that there is no difference between the case of a tree and a pit and the case of the tub and vegetables. That means that in both cases if the thing that causes damage was there first, it can stay even after the object that can be damaged came later, and this is the opinion of the sages But it is also possible that ר' יוסי holds that the mustard and the bees must both be three טפחים from the border, while the sages hold the mustard must be 6 טפחים away. This is the meaning of ר' יוסי that said the mustard is allowed. That means to be allowed to be nearer to the border than what the חכמים said. Since both the bee and mustard damage each other they must both be three טפחים away (note 1) In other words to the חכמיםonce anything is on the other side of the border that can be damaged, they hold you cannot put anything on your side that can cause damage. ר' יוסי say closely to the same thing except that the damage that it causes has to be a case of his arrows, i.e. damage by a direct actionץ (הערה 1) במילים אחרות, לחכמים ברגע שיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק, הם מחזיקים אתה לא יכול לשים שום דבר בצד שלך שיכול לגרום נזק. ר' יוסי אומר קרוב לאותו דבר, אלא שהנזק שהוא גורם צריך להיות מקרה של חיציו, כלומר נזק על ידי פעולה ישירה.

bava batra pg 18 b

ברצוני לנסות לענות על השאלה ששאלתי אתמול על גישתו של רבינו תם. אני חושב שמה שתוספות אומר זה שברגע שאנחנו זורקים את התשובה של "בעל הדבורים עשה משהו קצת לא תקין", אז אנחנו נאלצים לומר שר' יוסי התכוון שבכל המקרים הניזוק חייב להתרחק מהגבול. ולכן במקום לשאול על זה ממקרה הדבורים והחרדל, אנחנו שואלים מגיגית הכביסה שזה מקרה ברור שהירקות לא גורמים נזק ועדיין ר' יוסי אינו חולק על הדין שיש להזיז את הגיגית. אולם על כך ניתן להשיב שר' יוסי קובע במקרה של חציו שיש להסיר את הגורם הנזק (כמו שהגמרא אומרת בעמוד כ"ב ועמוד כ"ה). לכן, הגישה הזו של ר''ת עדיין קשה להבנה. כמו כן, אפשר לשאול כאן שעל התשובה הזו שזרקנו את הרעיון של "בעל הדבורים עושה משהו מעט לא תקין", אז נוכל לשאול אחת משתי שאלות. אחת שאם כן, אז לא ענינו על השאלה המקורית על רבא שמחזיק עכשיו כמו אביי ושעכשיו יש התנגשות בין ר' יוסי לאביי ונוכל לשאול ממקרה האמבטיה (משרה). אבל זו לא הבעיה העיקרית כאן כפי שכתבתי למעלה, כי אפשר לומר שהגמרא החליט לשאול שאלה אחת מתוך שתיים, אבל השאלה ששאלתי שאפשר לומר שר' יוסי מסכים במקרה של "חיציו" היא שאלה יותר קשה. אבל אולי אפשר לענות על זה שכל מה שהגמרא עושה הוא מנסה להגיע לבירור לגבי ר' יוסי ואביי, ובטווח הארוך זה מה שאנחנו מקבלים. ר' יוסי מחזיק הניזוק חייב להתרחק, אלא במקרה של "חיציו" של הגורם לנזק; וכי אין זה סותר את אביי שקבע שיכול להיות דבר שגורם נזק ליד הגבול אלא אם כן בא שם הדבר שניתן להזיק וזהו חיציו. רבינו חננאל אומר שר' יוסי מסכים עם החכמים בכל המשניות בפרק זה מלבד במקום שכתוב שהוא חולק בפירוש. אני מתאר לעצמי שזה יכול להיות בגלל שר' יוסי מחזיק ברוב המקרים הם מקרים של "החצים שלו". זה כשיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק

I would like to try to answer the question I asked yesterday on the approach of Rabbainu Tam. I think what Tosphot is saying is that once we throw out the answer of the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper then we are forced to say that R. Jose meant in all cases the one being damaged must move away from the border. so instead of asking on this from the case of the bees and mustard we ask from the tub of laundry which is a clear case of the vegetables doing no damage and still r Jose does not object to the law that the tub must be moved. However, on this is possible to answer that r Jose hold in a case of his arrow that the one causing the damage must be removed and a the Gemara says on page 22 and page 25. so, this approach of R. Tam is still difficult to understand. Also, it is possible to ask here that on this answer that we threw out the idea of the owner of the bees doing something slightly improper, then we could ask one of two questions. One that therefore we have not answered the original question of Rava who now holds like Abyee and that now there is a conflict between R Jose and Abyee and we can ask from the case of the tub. But this i not the main problem here as I wrote above that you can say that the Gemara decided to ask one question out of two But the question that I asked that we can say that R. Jose agrees in a case of “his arrows” is a more difficult question. But perhaps that can be answered that all that the Gemara is doing is trying to come to clarity about R. Jose and Abyee, and in the long run that is what we get. R Jose holds the one that is being damaged must move away except in a case of “his arrows” of the one causing the damage; and that this does not conflict with Abyee who held that one can have a thing that causes damage next to the border unless the thing that can be damaged comes there and it is a case of "his arrows". Later Rabainu Chananel (I think) says that in all the Mishnayot in this chapter, R Jose agree with the sages. I imagine this might be because R. Jose holds most of the cases are cases of "his arrows." And that is when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged I would like to try to answer the question I asked yesterday on the approach of רבינו תם. I think what תוספות is saying is that once we throw out the answer of "the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper," then we are forced to say that ר' יוסי meant in all cases the one being damaged must move away from the border. so instead of asking on this from the case of the bees and mustard we ask from the tub of laundry which is a clear case of the vegetables doing no damage and still ר' יוסי does not object to the law that the tub must be moved. However, on this is possible to answer that ר' יוסי hold in a case of his arrow that the one causing the damage must be removed (גמראas the Gemara says on page 22 and page 25). so, this approach of ר''ת is still difficult to understand. Also, it is possible to ask here that on this answer that we threw out the idea of "the owner of the bees doing something slightly improper," then we could ask one of two questions. One that if so, then we have not answered the original question of רבא who now holds like אביי and that now there is a conflict between ר' יוסי and אביי and we can ask from the case of the tub. But this is not the main problem here as I wrote above because that you can say that the גמראdecided to ask one question out of two But the question that I asked that we can say that ר' יוסי agrees in a case of “his arrows” is a more difficult question. But perhaps that can be answered that all that the גמרא is doing is trying to come to clarity about ר' יוסי and אביי, and in the long run that is what we get. ר' יוסי holds the one that is being damaged must move away except in a case of “his arrows” of the one causing the damage; and that this does not conflict with אבייwho held that one can have a thing that causes damage next to the border unless the thing that can be damaged comes there and it Is a case of his arrows.Later רבינו חננאל (I think) says that in all the משניות in this chapter, ר' יוסי agree with the חכמים. I imagine this might be because ר' יוסי holds most of the cases are cases of "his arrows." And that is when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged

הדרך שבה רבינו תם ורבינו חננאל מבינים את הגמרא בדף י''ח ע''ב בבבא בתרא יש בעיה קשה שאני מתקשה לענות עליה. או אם לומר את זה יותר טוב, הבעיה הזו תוספות מעלה ועונה עליה, אבל אני מוצא את התשובה קשה להבנה. הרקע לבעיה זו זה. אביי אמר שדבר שעלול לגרום נזק אפשר לשים ליד הגבול של שכן אם אין שום דבר בצד השני של הגבול. רבא אמר שזה לא יכול להיות ליד הגבול. אנו מבקשים על רבא מגיגית פשתן (השריית הכביסה) שיש להסירה מירקות. זה מרמז שאם אין ירקות, אז ניתן לשים שם את הגיגית של השריית הכביסה. תשובה: גם אם אין שם ירקות, בכל זאת זה צריך להיות שלושה טפחות מהגבול. במקום זאת, המשנה באה לספר לנו שאמבטיה של פשתן פוגעת בירקות. אחר כך נשאל מר' יוסי שאמר שאפשר לשים חרדל ליד דבורים למרות שהוא גורם נזק לדבורים. לפי רבינו תם, הגמרא עונה כאן שרבא חזר על דינו, ועתה מחזיק כמו אביי. משתמע זאת מהאמירה שגורסים חכמים שיש להסיר את מה שיכול לגרום נזק. אבל ר' יוסי אמר שיש להסיר את מה שיכול להינזק. הגמרא שואל אם כן, מדוע ר' יוסי אינו חולק על גיגית הפשתן. אם יש להסיר את הדבר שיכול להינזק, צריך לומר שצריך להסיר את הירקות. זו בהחלט שאלה טובה, אבל נראה שהיא מתעלמת מהעובדה שמעולם לא הייתה לנו בעיה עם אביי. אם רבא עכשיו מסכים עם אביי, למה יש עכשיו בעיה חדשה שלא הייתה לנו קודם? תוספות עונה על כך. ר' יוסי אמר רק שהוא יכול לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים כי בעל הדבורים ידע שהשכן שלו מתכנן לשים שם חרדל ולמרות שהוא יכול לעשות זאת כחוק, עדיין זה היה מעט לא תקין, ולכן עכשיו אפשר לשים גם את החרדל גם. אבל באופן כללי ר' יוסי מחזיק כמו אביי שמה שיכול לגרום נזק יכול להיות ליד הגבול עד שמכניסים לשם גם את החפץ שיכול להינזק. זו הייתה הדרך המקורית להבין את ר' יוסי כדי שלא יהיה מסוכסך עם אביי. אך כעת אנו חוזרים בהנחה זו ואומרים בכל המקרים את מה שניתן להזיק יש להוציא מהגבול, ולא את הדבר הגורם לנזק, וזאת בניגוד ישיר לאבי שקבע שסיבת הנזק יכולה להיות בצמוד לגבול רק אם אין דבר בצד השני. הבעיה כאן היא, איך זה משתמע בשאלה: אם כן, מדוע ר' יוסי אינו חולק על גיגית הפשתן והירקות? זו לא שאלה על ר' יוסי אם אתה הולך עם אביי. זה בדיוק מה שאביי אמר. אם יש ירקות אז הסר את הגיגית של הפשתן. השאלה צריכה להיות מהחרדל והדבורים. שם צריך להיות סכסוך בין אביי ור' יוסי. איך תוספות עונה על השאלה הזו היא תעלומה עבורי

Rabainu Tam and Rabainu Chanael, the gemara on page 18b in Bava Batra

The way that Rabainu Tam and Rabainu Chanael understand the gemara on page 18b in Bava Batra has a difficult problem that I find hard to answer. Or to say it better, this problem tosphot brings up and answers it, but I find the answer to be hard to understand. The background to this problem this. Abyee said that something that can cause damage can be put next to the border of a neighbor if there is nothing on the other side of the border. Rava said it cannot be next to the border. We ask on Rava from a tub of linen that must be removed away from vegetables. That would imply that if there are no vegetables, then the tub of soaking laundry can be put there. Answer: even if there are no vegetables there, yet it still needs to be three handbreadths from the border. Rather, the mishna is coming to tell us the tub of linen damages vegetables. Then we ask from R. Jose who said mustard can be put next to bees though it causes damage to the bees. According to Rabainu Tam , the gemara answers here that Rava went back on his law, and now holds like Abyee. It implies this by the statement the sages hold that what can cause damage mut e removed. but r Jose said what can be damaged must be removed. the gemara then asks if so, why does R. Jose not disagree with the tub of linen?If the thing that can be damaged must be removed, he ought to say the vegetables should be removed. This is certainly a good question, but it seems to ignore the fact that we never had a problem with Abyee. If Rava now agrees with Abyee, why is there now a new problem that we never had before? Tosphot answers this thus. R. Jose only said he can put the mustard next to the bees because the owner of the bees knew that his neighbor was planning on putting mustard there, and though he could do so legally, still it was slightly improper, and so now the mustard also can be put there. But in general, R. Jose holds the same way as Abyee that what can cause damage can be next to the border until the object that can be damaged is also put there. This was the original way of understanding R. Jose so that he would not be in conflict with Abyee. But now we are retracting this assumption and saying in all cases what can be damaged must be removed from the border, not the thing that causes damage and this is in direct conflict with Abyee who held that the cause of damage can be next to the border only if there is nothing on the other side. The problem here is, “How is this implied in the question: If so, why does R. Jose not disagree with the tub of linen and vegetables?” That is not a question on R. Jose if you go with Abyee. In fact it is exactly what Abyee said. If there are vegetables, then remove the tub of linen. The question should be from the mustard and bees. That is where there should be a conflict between Abyee and R. Jose. How Tosphot answers this question is a mystery to me. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vThe way that רבינו תםand רבינו חננאלl understand the גמרא on page י''ח ע''ב in בבא בתרא has a difficult problem that I find hard to answer. Or to say it better, this problem תוספות brings up and answers it, but I find the answer to be hard to understand. The background to this problem this. אביי said that something that can cause damage can be put next to the border of a neighbor if there is nothing on the other side of the border. רבא said it cannot be next to the border. We ask on רבא from a tub of linen that must be removed away from vegetables. That would imply that if there are no vegetables, then the tub of soaking laundry can be put there. Answer: even if there are no vegetables there, yet it still needs to be three handbreadths from the border. Rather, the משנה is coming to tell us the tub of linen damages vegetables. Then we ask from ר' יוסי who said mustard can be put next to bees though it causes damage to the bees. According to רבינו תם , the גמרא answers here that רבא went back on his law, and now holds like אביי. It implies this by the statement the sages hold that what can cause damage must be removed. But ר' יוסי said what can be damaged must be removed. the גמרא then asks if so why doe r Jose not disagree with the tub of linen. If the thing that can be damaged must be removed, he ought to say the vegetables should be removed. This is certainly a good question, but it seems to ignore the fact that we never had a problem withאביי . If רבא now agrees with אביי, why is there now a new problem that we never had before? תוספות answers this thus. ר' יוסי only said he can put the mustard next to the bees because the owner of the bees knew that his neighbor was planning on putting mustard there and though he could do so legally, still it was slightly improper, and so now the mustard also can be put thee. But in general, ר' יוסי holds the same way as אביי that what can cause damage can be next to the border until the object that can be damaged is also put there. This was the original way of understanding ר' יוסי so that he would not be in conflict with אביי. But now we are retracting this assumption and saying in all cases what can be damaged must be removed from the border, not the thing that causes damage and this is in direct conflict with Abyee who held that the cause of damage can be next to the border only if there is nothing on the other side. The problem here is “how here is how is this implied in the question: If so, why does ר' יוסי not disagree with the tub of linen and vegetables?” that is not a question on ר' עיוסי if you go with אביי in fact it is exactly what אביי said. If there are vegetables then remove the tub of linen. the question should be from the mustard and bees. That is where there should be a conflict between Abyee and r Jose. how tosphot answers this question is a mystery to me.