I noticed something hard to understand in the gemara bava batra 18b I mean let’s look at the beginning. Rava said you have to remove something that can cause damage away from the border. The gemara then asks from the rabanan of the mishna that say you have to remove mustard from bees. From this it is clear that if there are no bees there, then the mustard can be put there. That is a question on Rava. Answer. No. Anything that causes damage has to be removed from the border, but this Mishna is coming to tell us that mustard damages bees; they come and eat it and then it ruins their honey. so now we understand that the bees are not at the border. Then, the gemara asks from R. Jose who said, "Before you tell me to remove my mustard, why don’t you remove your bees which come and eat it?" The question is clear. If Rava would be right, then there is no reason for R. Jose to complain. The bees are three handbreadths from the border and we tell the owner of mustard to also keep his mustard three handbreadths from the border. (I.e., What R Jose said does not fit with Rava.) Rav Papa answered, "It is a case of a sale." R. Izhak says at this point the assumption is that the mustard is at the border, but what is hard to understand here is the statement of R. Jose: To keep the bees away. In the approach of R. Jose each one causes damage to the another, so why would he say to keep the bees away? He should say to keep away which ever came to the border secondly after the first one was already there; bees or mustard. I would be tempted to suggest that r jose holds the mustard does no damage to the bees, but then you might ask why does he not say in the mishna to keep the bees away instead of saying "R Jose allows to mustard (to be next to the bees)". Rather, I think that the gemara is already anticipating the fact that we eventually conclude that R Jose holds one must remove that which can be damaged, not that which causes damage, and that is the reason R. Jose is allowing the mustard to be near the bees. If the owner of the bees want to, he can remove the bees. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ I would be tempted to suggest that ר' יוסי hold the mustard does no damage to the bees, but then you might ask why does it not say in the משנה that ר' יוסי said to keep the bees away instead of, " ר' יוסי allows to mustard (to be next to the bees)". Rather I think that the גמרא is already anticipating the fact that we eventually conclude that ר' יוסי holds one must remove that which can be damaged, not that which causes damage and that is the reason ר' יוסי is allowing the mustard to be near the bees. If the owner of the bees wants to, he can remove the bees.