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