Rabbainu Tam in Bava Batra page 18b

Rabbainu Tam holds that Rava is holding like the sages, not like R. Jose. (However you can explain the version that says, “Rather, Ravina said” to mean that Rava holds like R. Jose but only with difficulty.) Thus the way Rabainu Tam understands Ravina is that Rava holds like the Rababan that only when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged is the owner of the object that can cause damage must keep it way from the border. The argument between the sages and R. Jose is about the idea that the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper by putting them by the border, and so the owner of the mustard can do the same thing. The sages disagree with this, and say that the owner of the bees did something slightly improper, that is no reason to allow the mustard also to be by the border. Rather, the mustard must be 6 handbreadths from the border. Then comes the question of the Gemara that, “If so, then why does R. Jose not disagree about the tub and vegetables?” That means according to R Tam, that the Gemara thinks there is no reason for the sages and R. Jose to disagree about the reason of "slightly improper", and that instead of that, the reason R. Jose allows the mustard by the border is that the thing that can be damaged should be moved away from the border. Then now, there is a question from the tub on R. Jose that in that case, also the vegetables ought to be moved, not the tub. But now we can ask since R. Jose holds with “his arrows” and agrees with the sages in all the cases in this chapter except where it says openly that he disagrees, then in what reasoning the sages and R Jose disagree here? I might have thought that the difference is if you have put the thing that causes damage next to the border when nothing else was on the other side, and then the neighbor put there something that can be damaged. In that case, R Jose would say the thing that can causes damage can remain there because that that point the owner is not doing an action that can cause damage. He is passive at that point. It is not his arrows. On the other hand, the sages would say he must remove the object as all the mishnayot are clear. If there something that can be damaged on the other side, then the object that causes damage must be moved. (note 1)That means, even if that second object came there after the thing that causes damage was already there. But Tosphot does not hold this way. He holds that there is no difference between the case of a tree and a pit and the case of the tub and vegetables. That means that in both cases. if the thing that causes damage was there first, it can stay even after the object that can be damaged came later and this is the opinion of the sages. But it is also possible that R. Jose holds that the mustard and the bees must both be three handbreadths from the border, while the sages hold the mustard must be 6 handbreadths away. This is the meaning of R. Jose that said the mustard is allowed. That means to be allowed to be nearer to the border than what the sages said. Since both the bee and mustard damage each other they must both be three handbreadths’ away. (note 1) In other words to the sages once anything is on the other side of the border that can be damaged, they hold you cannot put anything on your side that can cause damage. R Jose say closely to the same thing except that the damage that it causes has to be a case of his arrows, i.e. damage by a direct action ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ רבינו תםholds that רבא is holding like theחכמים , not like ר' יוסי. (However you can explain the version that says, “אלא אמר רבינא” to mean that רבא holds like ר' יוסי.) Thus, the way ר''ת understands רבינא is that רבא holds like the רבנן that only when there is something on the other side of the border that can be damaged, the owner of the object that can cause damage must keep it away from the border. The argument between the חכמים and ר' יוסי is about the idea that the owner of the bees did something slightly not proper by putting them by the border, and so the owner of the mustard can do the same thing. The חכמים disagree with this, and say that even though the owner of the bees did something slightly improper, that is no reason to allow the mustard also to be by the border. Rather, the mustard must be 6 טפחים from the border. Then comes the question of the גמרא that “If so, then why does ר' יוסי agree about the tub and vegetables?” That means according to ר''ת, that the גמרא thinks there is no reason for the חכמים and ר' יוסי to disagree about the reason of "slightly improper", and that instead of that, the reason ר' יוסי allows the mustard by the border is that the thing that can be damaged should be moved away from the border. Then now, there is a question from the tub on ר' יוסי that in that case, also the vegetables ought to be moved, not the tub. But now we can ask since ר' יוסי holds with “his arrows” and agrees with the חכמים in all the cases in this chapter except where it says openly that he disagrees, then in what reasoning the חכמים and ר' יוסי disagree here? I might have thought that the difference is if you have put the thing that causes damage next to the border when nothing else was on the other side, and then the neighbor put there something that can be damaged. In that case, ר' יוסי would say the thing that can cause damage can remain there because that that point the owner is not doing an action that can cause damage. He is passive at that point. It is not "his arrows". On the other hand, the sages would say he must remove the object as all the משניות are clear. If there something that can be damaged on the other side, then the object that causes damage must be moved. That means, even if that second object came there after the thing that causes damage was already there. But תוספות does not hold this way. He holds that there is no difference between the case of a tree and a pit and the case of the tub and vegetables. That means that in both cases if the thing that causes damage was there first, it can stay even after the object that can be damaged came later, and this is the opinion of the sages But it is also possible that ר' יוסי holds that the mustard and the bees must both be three טפחים from the border, while the sages hold the mustard must be 6 טפחים away. This is the meaning of ר' יוסי that said the mustard is allowed. That means to be allowed to be nearer to the border than what the חכמים said. Since both the bee and mustard damage each other they must both be three טפחים away (note 1) In other words to the חכמיםonce anything is on the other side of the border that can be damaged, they hold you cannot put anything on your side that can cause damage. ר' יוסי say closely to the same thing except that the damage that it causes has to be a case of his arrows, i.e. damage by a direct actionץ (הערה 1) במילים אחרות, לחכמים ברגע שיש משהו בצד השני של הגבול שיכול להינזק, הם מחזיקים אתה לא יכול לשים שום דבר בצד שלך שיכול לגרום נזק. ר' יוסי אומר קרוב לאותו דבר, אלא שהנזק שהוא גורם צריך להיות מקרה של חיציו, כלומר נזק על ידי פעולה ישירה.