The conclusion of Rabbainu Izhak in Bava Batra page 18

There is no reason to automatically connect the concept of his arrows on page 22 with the approach of R Jose on page 18. There might be a connection, but it is not automatic. Here I would like to learn the sugia on page 18 according to Rabbainu Izhak, and what would be the ultimate conclusion. The ultimate conclusion is that R Jose holds it is upon the object that can be damaged to be moved only in a case of a sale. But in a situation of just two neighbors, anything that can cause damage has to move three handbreadths from the border a per the law stated by Rava. In our mishna here of the mustard and bees and the tub of linen and vegetables, R Jose holds nor the mustard nor the tub have to be moved because this is a case of a sale. And also, that would be the case of page 25 with the tree and pit. The tree does not have to be moved because to R Jose that is also a case of a sale. Now Rava and R Jose agree that anything that can cause damage in a situation that is not a sale has to be moved. But does that mean that R Jose agrees with all the other kinds of damage in this chapter? It might be that he agrees in these cases, and not because of his arrows, but simply because he agrees with all the other cases that they cause damage. This does not relate to the idea of his arrows on page 22 On page 22 it is stated that R Jose agrees with the sages in the case of his arrows. That would mean that even in a case of a sale, R. Jose would agree with the sages that all the kinds of objects that can cause damage have to be moved if they are his arrows. But that does not necessarily relate to our gemara on page 18. Here R Jose disagrees with the sages in any case of a sale. In all the other mishnayot presumably in the case of a sale he would also disagree. (If you go with the idea that R Jose agrees in a case of his of his arrows on page 22, then then Rabbainu Chnanel holds all the mishnayot in this chapter are his arrows and Rashi disagrees based on our gemara here on page 18 that says in its conclusion that R Jose was trying to convince the sages about the case of mustard and bees, but in fact he disagrees with them also about the tub and vegetables. That might be a reason to say that R Jose disagrees in all the other cases in this chapter.) ____________________________________________________________________________ There is no reason to automatically connect the concept of his arrows on page כ''ב with the approach of ר' יוסי on page 18. There might be a connection, but it is not automatic. Here I would like to learn the סוגיא on page י''ח according to רבינו יצחק (הר''י)and what would be the ultimate conclusion. The ultimate conclusion is that ר' יוסי holds it is upon the object that can be damaged to be moved only in a case of a sale. But in a situation of just two neighbors, anything that can cause damage has to move three handbreadths from the border as per the law stated by רבא. In our משנה here of the mustard and bees and the tub of linen and vegetables, ר' יוסי holds nor the mustard nor the tub have to be moved because this is a case of a sale. Also, that would be the case of page כ''ה with the tree and pit. The tree does not have to be moved because to ר' יוסי that is also a case of a sale. Now רבא and ר' יוסי agree that anything that can cause damage in a situation that is not a sale has to be moved. But does that mean that ר' יוסי agree with all the other kind of damage in this chapter? It might be that he agrees in these cases and not because of his arrows, but simply because he agrees with all the other cases that they cause damage. This does not relate to the idea of his arrows on page 22 On page 22 it is stated that ר'יוסי agrees with the חכמים in the case of his arrows. That would mean that even in a case of a sale ר' יוסי would agree with the חכמים that all the kinds of objects that can cause damage have to be moved if they are his arrows. But that does not necessarily relate to our גמרא on page 18. Here ר' יוסי disagrees with the חכמים in any case of a sale. in all the other משניות presumably in the case of a sale he would also disagree.(If you go with the idea that ר' יוסי agree in a case of his of his arrows on page 22 then then רבינו חננאל holds all the משניות in this chapter are his arrows and רש''י disagrees based on our גמרא here on page 18 that says in its conclusion that ר' יוסי was trying to convince the חכמים about the case of mustard and bees, but in fact he disagrees with them also about the tub and vegetables. That might be a reason to say that ר' יוסי disagrees in all the other cases in this chapter.) ________