Rabainu Tam and Rabainu Chanael, the gemara on page 18b in Bava Batra

The way that Rabainu Tam and Rabainu Chanael understand the gemara on page 18b in Bava Batra has a difficult problem that I find hard to answer. Or to say it better, this problem tosphot brings up and answers it, but I find the answer to be hard to understand. The background to this problem this. Abyee said that something that can cause damage can be put next to the border of a neighbor if there is nothing on the other side of the border. Rava said it cannot be next to the border. We ask on Rava from a tub of linen that must be removed away from vegetables. That would imply that if there are no vegetables, then the tub of soaking laundry can be put there. Answer: even if there are no vegetables there, yet it still needs to be three handbreadths from the border. Rather, the mishna is coming to tell us the tub of linen damages vegetables. Then we ask from R. Jose who said mustard can be put next to bees though it causes damage to the bees. According to Rabainu Tam , the gemara answers here that Rava went back on his law, and now holds like Abyee. It implies this by the statement the sages hold that what can cause damage mut e removed. but r Jose said what can be damaged must be removed. the gemara then asks if so, why does R. Jose not disagree with the tub of linen?If the thing that can be damaged must be removed, he ought to say the vegetables should be removed. This is certainly a good question, but it seems to ignore the fact that we never had a problem with Abyee. If Rava now agrees with Abyee, why is there now a new problem that we never had before? Tosphot answers this thus. R. Jose only said he can put the mustard next to the bees because the owner of the bees knew that his neighbor was planning on putting mustard there, and though he could do so legally, still it was slightly improper, and so now the mustard also can be put there. But in general, R. Jose holds the same way as Abyee that what can cause damage can be next to the border until the object that can be damaged is also put there. This was the original way of understanding R. Jose so that he would not be in conflict with Abyee. But now we are retracting this assumption and saying in all cases what can be damaged must be removed from the border, not the thing that causes damage and this is in direct conflict with Abyee who held that the cause of damage can be next to the border only if there is nothing on the other side. The problem here is, “How is this implied in the question: If so, why does R. Jose not disagree with the tub of linen and vegetables?” That is not a question on R. Jose if you go with Abyee. In fact it is exactly what Abyee said. If there are vegetables, then remove the tub of linen. The question should be from the mustard and bees. That is where there should be a conflict between Abyee and R. Jose. How Tosphot answers this question is a mystery to me. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ vThe way that רבינו תםand רבינו חננאלl understand the גמרא on page י''ח ע''ב in בבא בתרא has a difficult problem that I find hard to answer. Or to say it better, this problem תוספות brings up and answers it, but I find the answer to be hard to understand. The background to this problem this. אביי said that something that can cause damage can be put next to the border of a neighbor if there is nothing on the other side of the border. רבא said it cannot be next to the border. We ask on רבא from a tub of linen that must be removed away from vegetables. That would imply that if there are no vegetables, then the tub of soaking laundry can be put there. Answer: even if there are no vegetables there, yet it still needs to be three handbreadths from the border. Rather, the משנה is coming to tell us the tub of linen damages vegetables. Then we ask from ר' יוסי who said mustard can be put next to bees though it causes damage to the bees. According to רבינו תם , the גמרא answers here that רבא went back on his law, and now holds like אביי. It implies this by the statement the sages hold that what can cause damage must be removed. But ר' יוסי said what can be damaged must be removed. the גמרא then asks if so why doe r Jose not disagree with the tub of linen. If the thing that can be damaged must be removed, he ought to say the vegetables should be removed. This is certainly a good question, but it seems to ignore the fact that we never had a problem withאביי . If רבא now agrees with אביי, why is there now a new problem that we never had before? תוספות answers this thus. ר' יוסי only said he can put the mustard next to the bees because the owner of the bees knew that his neighbor was planning on putting mustard there and though he could do so legally, still it was slightly improper, and so now the mustard also can be put thee. But in general, ר' יוסי holds the same way as אביי that what can cause damage can be next to the border until the object that can be damaged is also put there. This was the original way of understanding ר' יוסי so that he would not be in conflict with אביי. But now we are retracting this assumption and saying in all cases what can be damaged must be removed from the border, not the thing that causes damage and this is in direct conflict with Abyee who held that the cause of damage can be next to the border only if there is nothing on the other side. The problem here is “how here is how is this implied in the question: If so, why does ר' יוסי not disagree with the tub of linen and vegetables?” that is not a question on ר' עיוסי if you go with אביי in fact it is exactly what אביי said. If there are vegetables then remove the tub of linen. the question should be from the mustard and bees. That is where there should be a conflict between Abyee and r Jose. how tosphot answers this question is a mystery to me.