I would like to bring a strong proof for the approach of Rabbainu Izhak on page 18b of Bava Batra. It is this. Raviva answers "The sages hold that the thing that causes damage must be removed." Well Yes. Of course. Why else would they have said to keep the tub soaking the linen away from the vegetables and a pit from another pit? Clearly, Ravina is coming to answer a certain question. And that question is clearly the one just asked on the sages: "If we are talking about a sale, they why do the sages say to keep the tub of linen away from the vegetables?" Answer: because even in the case of a sale, they hold one must keep that which causes damage away from that which can be damaged. But if you hold like Rabbainu Tam this answer does not answer the question what so ever. The question that this is supposed to answer in the approach of Rabainu Tam is this. R Jose said to keep the bees away from the mustard. If Rava would be right [that one must keep anything that can cause damage away from the border], how can you find such a situation in which the case of R. Jose comes up? The answer to this question is supposed to be ""The sages hold one must remove anything that can cause damage." What does this have to do with the question on Rava from R. Jose? Nothing at all. so Rabbainu Tam and Rabbainu Chananel and the Rif have to read into this answer things it does not say, [I.e. that Rava changed his mind and agrees with Abyee about everything except the pit next to a border. And that R. Yose agrees with the sages in any case of "his arrows are causing damage]. “Not a word of this is indicated in the statement of Ravina that “The sages hold he must remove away anything that can cause damage.” All this is a very strong proof to the approach of Rabbainu Izhak.____________________________________________________________________________________________________I would like to bring a strong proof for the approach of רבינו יצחק on page י''ח ע''ב of בבא בתרא. It is this. רבינא answers "the חכמים hold that the thing that causes damage must be removed." Well Yes. Of course. Why else would they have said to keep the tub soaking the linen away from the vegetables and a pit from another pit? Clearly, רבינא is coming to answer a certain question. And that question is clearly the one just asked on the חכמים: if we are talking about a sale, they why do the חכמים say to keep the tub of linen away from the vegetables? Answer: because even in the case of a sale, they hold one must keep that which causes damage away from that which can be damaged. But if you hold like רבינו תם this answer does not answer the question what so ever. The question that this is supposed to answer in the approach of רבינו תם is this. ר' יוסי said to keep the bees away from the mustard. If רבא would be right that one must keep anything that can cause damage away from the border, how can you find such a situation in which the case of ר' יוסי comes up? The answer to this question is supposed to be ""the חכמים hold one must remove anything that can cause damage." What does this have to do with the question of רבא from ר' יוסי? Nothing. so רבינו תם and רבינו חננאל and the רי''ף have to read into this answer things it does not say. I.e. that רבא changed his mind and agrees with אביי about everything except the pit next to a border. And that ר' יוסי agrees with the חכמים in any case of "his arrows are causing damage. “Not a word of this is indicated in the statement of רבינא that “The חכמים hold he must remove away anything that can cause damage.” All this is a very strong proof to the approach of רבינו יצחק.