בבא בתרא דף י''ח עמוד ב' תוספות ד''ה מכלל על סוגיא של חרדל ודבורים. שאלת הגמרא היא שהחכמים מחזיקים שהמזיק מחוייב להרחיק את עצמו, ולכן חייב להיות שר' יוסי מחזיק על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. אבל אם כך אז למה הוא לא אומר את אותו הדבר על משרה וירקות? כלומר, החכמים מחזיקים שאת החרדל יש להרחיק מן הדבורים כי למרות שהדבורים גורמות נזק, עדיין הן נחשבות ניזוקות כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ר' יוסי מחזיק בשיטה שאחד יכול לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, משום ששניהם שווים, וכיוון שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך גם את החרדל אפשר לשים ליד הגבול. אז תשובת הגמרא היא כי ר' יוסי גם אומר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. פירוש הדבר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק ושהחרדל אינו גורם נזק כלל לדבורים ולכן יש להעביר את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. ישנן שתי שאלות. מדוע תוספות משנה את החכמים. בהתחלה הם מחזיקים שהדבורים נחשבות דברים ניזוקים כי הן הועמדו ליד הגבול ברשות. ובתשובת הגמרא הם מחזיקים שדבורים לא גורמות שום נזק בכלל. השאלה השנייה היא זו. למה הם משנים את דעתו של ר' יוסי גם? ראשית הם אומרים שר' יוסי מחזיק שיכולים לשים את החרדל ליד הדבורים, כי שניהם שווים. מאז שהדבורים נמצאות ליד הגבול, כך חרדל גם ניתן לשים ליד הגבול. אז תוספות אומר כי ר' יוסי מחזיק כי הדבורים גורמות נזק לחרדל, אבל החרדל לא גורם נזק בכלל לדבורים. לכן מחוייבים להרחיק את הדבורים ששה טפחים הרחק מהגבול. אני מתכוון באמת כי לא נראה שיש סיבה לשנות את דעתו של ר" יוסי כך דרסטי. גם בחלק שאלת גמרא מובן כי דבורים גורמות נזק, אז אפשר להשאיר העובדה הזו במקום ולומר שר' יוסי אומר שאתה יכול לעזוב את הדבורים במקום לשים את חרדל לצד זה. ההבדל היחיד יהיה בחלק שאלת גמרא העובדה שהוא היה מותר לשים הדבורים ליד הגבול וזה הופך את הדבורים להיות נחשבות ניזקות. בתשובה שהתקבל אתה יכול פשוט לעזוב את הרעיון הזה כי ממילא בתשובה לא אף אחד מחזיק בזה
I mean there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion of ר' יוסי so drastically. Even in the question part of the גמרא it is understood that bees cause damage, so one could leave that fact in place and say ר' יוסי means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it. The only difference would be in the question part of the גמרא the fact that he was allowed to put the bees there make it that the bees are considered the ניזק. In the answer you could simply leave out that idea which in any case n the answer no one hold from, not even the חכמים
IN Plain English:
In the Talmud Bava Batra the third Tosphot on the sugia of mustard and bees [page 18 side B] there are two questions that I have. One is why does Tosphot change the sages from the bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission, to they are considered subject to damage but not causing damages because they in fact cause no damage.
I mean even in R. Jose there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion so drastically. Even in the question it is understood that bees cause damage, so leave that in place and say R. Jose means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it.
In בבא בתרא page י''ח ענוד ב the תוספות ד''ה מכלל on the סוגיא of mustard and bees. The question of the גמרא is since the חכמים hold על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו, so it must be that ר' יוסי holds על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו. But if so then why does he not say the same this about a משרה and vegetables? That means to תוספות that the חכמים hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because even though bees cause damage, still they are considered to be damaged because they were put next to the border by permission. ר' יוסי holds you can put the mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then the גמרא answers that ר' יוסי also says על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו. That means to תוספות that ר' יוסי holds that the bees cause damage and that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved ששה טפחים away from the border.There are two questions. Why does תוספות change the חכמים. At first they hold from the bees are considered things ניזוקות because they were put next to the border by permission. Then they hold bees do no damage at all.
The second question I have is this. Why do they change the opinion of ר' יוסי also? First they say that ר' יוסי holds you can put the mustard next to the bees because both are equal. Since the bees are next to the border, so the mustard also can be put next to the border. Then תוספות says that ר' יוסי holds that the bees damage mustard, but that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees. Therefore צריכים להרחיק את הבורים ששה טפחים away from the border. The answer these questions must come from the way the גמרא answers the question on ר' יוסי.
I mean there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion of ר' יוסי so drastically. Even in the question part of the גמרא it is understood that bees cause damage, so one could leave that fact in place and say ר' יוסי means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it. The only difference would be in the question part of the גמרא the fact that he was allowed to put the bees there make it that the bees are considered the ניזק. In the answer you could simply leave out that idea which in any case n the answer no one hold from, not even the חכמים
IN Plain English:
In the Talmud Bava Batra the third Tosphot on the sugia of mustard and bees [page 18 side B] there are two questions that I have. One is why does Tosphot change the sages from the bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission, to they are considered subject to damage but not causing damages because they in fact cause no damage.
The second question I have is why do they change the opinion of R. Yose also from you can put the mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border. To then saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.
The answer to both questions must come from the way the Gemara answers the question on R Yose saying he and also the sages hold it is upon the one that cause damage to remove the object.
Just to make my questions more clear let me present what Tosphot actually says. I just make it clear that this Tosphot is not anything like the Tosphot that comes right before it and they both are holding radically different ideas about this sugia and they disagree on major points. [However both Tosphot hold that this part of the Gemara is still holing that half the field was bought.]
The question of the Gemara is since the sages hold the one that causes damage must remove his object so it must be that R. Jose hold the one that is damaged must be the one to remove his object.
[But if so then why does he not say the same this about a washbasin and vegetables?] That means to Tosphot that the sages hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission. R Jose holds you can put the mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border.
Then the Gemara answers that R Jose also says that it is upon the one that causes damage to remove his object. That means to Tosphot that R Yose hold saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.
The answer to both questions must come from the way the Gemara answers the question on R Yose saying he and also the sages hold it is upon the one that cause damage to remove the object.
Just to make my questions more clear let me present what Tosphot actually says. I just make it clear that this Tosphot is not anything like the Tosphot that comes right before it and they both are holding radically different ideas about this sugia and they disagree on major points. [However both Tosphot hold that this part of the Gemara is still holing that half the field was bought.]
The question of the Gemara is since the sages hold the one that causes damage must remove his object so it must be that R. Jose hold the one that is damaged must be the one to remove his object.
[But if so then why does he not say the same this about a washbasin and vegetables?] That means to Tosphot that the sages hold the mustard must be kept away from the bees because bees are considered things subject to damage because they were put next to the border by permission. R Jose holds you can put the mustard next to the bees because both are equal and since the bees are next to the border so the mustard also can be put next to the border.
Then the Gemara answers that R Jose also says that it is upon the one that causes damage to remove his object. That means to Tosphot that R Yose hold saying that the bees are the only things that cause damage and that the mustard does not cause damage at all to bees and therefore the bees have to be moved 6 hand-breaths away from the border.
I mean even in R. Jose there really does not seem to be any reason to change the opinion so drastically. Even in the question it is understood that bees cause damage, so leave that in place and say R. Jose means you can leave the bees in place and put the mustard next to it.
