Rabbainu Tam and Rabbainu Chananel in Bava Batra page 18

It occurred to me that the opinion of Rabbainu Tam and Rabbainu Chananel makes a lot of sense, because they are taking notice of the fact that R. Jose agrees that in a case of "his arrows" (that the one who causes damage must keep away as the gemara says in Bava Batra page 22a); and that the law is like R. Jose, and that the law is always like Rava against Abyee except in yal kegam. Taking all this into account, it makes sense to explain the gemara in Bava Batra page 18 in the way that they do. We ask from R. Jose on Rava. "If one has to remove his thing that causes damage away from the border, then how do we find a case were R. Jose is saying 'Why tell me to move my mustard? First, you should remove your bees'" What are the bees doing there in the first place? Answer: it is a case of a sale. But then, if so, why does R. Jose not disagree about the tub of linen and say it also is permitted, and why do the sages say it should be removed? Rather Ravina said the sages said to remove anything that can cause damage. This means, that Rava agrees with R. Jose, and only said his law in a case of removing one pit away from the border where there can be another pit, or even if there is no other pit, because it weakens the ground. And R. Jose agrees in all cases of "his arrows" like the tub of linen, but is saying about the bees that they are a case of "his arrows" and the sages say the mustard is the main cause of damage to the bees, not vice versa __________________________________________________________________________ It occurred to me that the opinion of רבינו תם and רבינו חננאל makes a lot of sense, because they are taking notice of the fact that ר'יוסי agrees that in a case of with "his arrows" (that the one who causes damage must keep away as the גמרא says in בבא בתרא page כ''ב ע''א); and that the law is like ר' יוסי, and that the law is always like רבא against אביי except in יע''ל כג''ם. Taking all this into account, it makes sense to explain the גמרא in בבא בתרא page י''ח in the way that they do. We ask from ר' יוסי a question on .רבא If one has to remove his היזק away from the border, then how do we find a case were ר' יוסי is saying "why tell me to move my mustard? First, you should remove your bees." What are the bees doing there in the first place? Answer, it is a case of a sale. But then, if so, why does ר' יוסי not disagree about the מישרה and say it also is permitted, and why do the חכמים say it should be removed? Rather רבינאsaid the חכמים said to remove anything that can cause damage. This means, that רבא agrees with ר' יוסי and only said his law in a case of removing one pit away from the border where there can be another pit, or even if there is no other pit, because it weakens the ground. And ר' יוסי agree in all cases of his arrows like the משרה, but is saying about the bees that they are a case of his arrows and the חכמים say rather the mustard is the main cause of damage to the bees, not vice versa