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.