I would like to bring a strong proof for the approach of Rabbainu Izhak on page 18b of Bava Batra. It is this. Raviva answers "The sages hold that the thing that causes damage must be removed." Well Yes. Of course. Why else would they have said to keep the tub soaking the linen away from the vegetables and a pit from another pit? Clearly, Ravina is coming to answer a certain question. And that question is clearly the one just asked on the sages: "If we are talking about a sale, they why do the sages say to keep the tub of linen away from the vegetables?" Answer: because even in the case of a sale, they hold one must keep that which causes damage away from that which can be damaged. But if you hold like Rabbainu Tam this answer does not answer the question. The question that this is supposed to answer in the approach of Rabainu Tam is this. R Jose said to keep the bees away from the mustard. If Rava would be right [that one must keep anything that can cause damage away from the border], how can you find such a situation in which the case of R. Jose comes up? The answer to this question is according to R. Tam to be ""The sages hold one must remove anything that can cause damage." Rabbainu Tam and Rabbainu Chananel have to read into this answer that Rava changed his mind and agrees with Abyee about everything except the pit next to a border. All this is a very strong proof to the approach of Rabbainu Izhak._ However, I can still see the point of R. Tam. He does read into the answer of Ravina a little more than what it says, but only a drop more that you have to read into it anyway. To R. Izhak you have to read into it that Rava agrees with the sages alone, and not with R. Jose. To R. Tam you have to read that into that statement, but add also that Rava said his law only in one case. The fact that the Rif and Ri Migash hold that the law is like R. Yose and that R. Jose only said his law in a case of "his arrows", and that they can by this accomplish an important task is not a fault but a good thing. For the rule in the law is like Rava in all cases (except yal kegam) and later the gemara says the law is like R. Jose, In the girsa (approach) of R. Tam, the Rif can hold that this is consistent; the law is both like R. Jose and Rava,

למרות שאני יכול לראות את חשיבות גישתו של רבינו יצחק דף י''ח ע''ב בבא בתרא, אני לא יכול להבין למה להניח שר' יוסי מסכים שהחרדל גורם נזק כלשהו. אני מתכוון לומר, שאם אתה מניח את זה כעובדה, אז רבינו יצחק צריך לצאת ממה שנראה כקשיים מיותרים. למה לשנות את ההנחה המקורית מהיות הדבורים ליד הגבול לחרדל שנמצא שם? ועוד, אם אתה מחליף שהחרדל יהיה ליד הגבול, אז למה אתה צריך בכלל לטעון שמדובר במכירה? רק תגיד שהחרדל היה שם קודם, ולכן יש להסיר את הדבורים. אם היית אומר שר' יוסי מחזיק שהדבורים עושות את כל הנזק והחרדל לא עושה כלום, אז הכל יהיה בסדר. ר' יוסי אומר שאפשר לשים את החרדל ליד הגבול גם כשהדבורים היו שם קודם כי החרדל לא גורם נזק. אם בעל החרדל לא מוטרד, אז הוא יכול לשים שם את החרדל אם ירצה. מדוע יטען ר' יוסי שלא ירשה לשים שם את החרדל שמה. אני יכול להזכיר כאן שרב שך מסתכל על השאלה מדוע השלחן ערוך אומר שיש חשש לפתוח חלון לבניין נטוש כי בעל הבניין יכול לטעון שהוא רוצה לבנות, ומתי שהוא עושה זאת ,הוא לא רוצה לפנות לבית המשפט כדי שבעל החלון יסגור את החלון כדי לא לגרום ל"נזק בראייה". הוא הולך עם הפוסקים הגדולים בנושא, אבל אני תוהה מדוע הדאגה מפנייה לבית המשפט חלה על החלון לבניין הנטוש, ולא במקרים אחרים של גורמים לנזק? אבל לדעתי החוק הוא תמיד כמו רבא ותמיד יש דאגה כזו

Even though I can see the importance of the approach of Rabainu Izhak on page 18b of Bava Batra, I cannot understand why assume that R Yose agrees that the mustard does any damage what so ever? I mean to saט that if you assume that as a fact, then Rabbainu Izhak has to get out of what seems to be unnecessary difficulties. Why change the original assumption from the bees being next to the border to the mustard being there? And furthermore, if you change to the mustard being next to the border, then why do you need to claim it is a case of a sale at all? Just say the mustard was there first, and so the bees have to be removed. If you would say that R. Yose holds the bees do all the damage, and the mustard does none, then everything would be fine. R. Yose says the mustard can be put next to the border even when the bees were there first because the mustard does no damage. If the owner of the mustard is not bothered, then he can put the mustard there if he wants. Why would R. Yose claim that he would not allow the mustard to be put there? I might mention here that Rav shach mainly is looking at the question of why the shulchan Aruch says there is a worry about opening up a window into a deserted building because the owner of the building can claim that he wants to build, and when he does so he does not want to go to court to have the owner of the window to shut the window so as not to cause “damage of seeing.” He goes with the major poskim [legal authorities] on the issue, but I am puzzled why the worry about going to court applies to the window into the deserted building, and not in other cases of causes of damage? But in my opinion the law is always like Ravaת and there is always such a worry. __________________________________________________________________________________________ Even though I can see the importance of the approach of רבינו יצחק page י''ח ע''ב of בבא בתרא, I cannot understand why assume that ר' יוסי agrees that the mustard does any damage what so ever. I mean to say, that if you assume that as A fact, then רבינו יצחק has to get out of what seems to be unnecessary difficulties. Why change the original assumption from the bees being next to the border to the mustard being there? And furthermore, if you change to the mustard being next to the border, then why do you need to claim it is a case of a sale at all? Just say the mustard was there first, and so the bees have to be removed. If you would say that ר' יוסי holds the bees do all the damage and the mustard does none, then everything would be fine. ר' יוסי says the mustard can be put next to the border even when the bees were there first because the mustard does no damage. If the owner of the mustard is not bothered, then he can put the mustard there if he wants. Why would ר' יוסי claim that he would not allow the mustard to be put there. I might mention here that רב שך is looking at the question of why the שלחן ערוך says there is a worry about opening up a window into a deserted building because the owner of the building can claim that he wants to build, and when he does so he does not want to go to court to have the owner of the window to shut the window so a not to cause “damage of seeing.” He goes with the major פוסקים [legal authorities] on the issue, but I am puzzled why the worry about going to court applies to the window into the deserted building, and not in other cases of causes of damage? But in my opinion the law is always like רבא and there is always such a worry.

Abraham the patriarch lived in Gerar (an ancient city of the Pleshtim) for some period. Also, Isaac for a few years. [The land at that time was mostly Canaan, but those southern areas were settled by the Pleshtim. [[It coincides almost exactly with Gaza.] If you look on a map at where the archeologists discovered the site of that ancient city, it comes out at modern day Netivot. This explains the statement of Bava sali that Netivot is the "city of the Patriarchs." [Isaac was there for a few years, but had trouble with the shepherds of the Pleshtim, and eventually had to move (or wanted to move) to Beersheva. (He was okay with the king of the pleshtim, but decided at some point that that staying there was more trouble than what it was worth.)

I have been hoping to understand the approach of Rav shach in removal of objects that can cause damage, but (outside of some basic ideas) I have not gotten far. I have a local beit midrash within walking distance, so I have been able to look at the gemara Bava batra page 18 and one of Rav shmuel Rozovski's books on bava Batra. [[I think one volume of his is missing] I think I need to continue in this subject, but I have to say that the small pamphlet on this subject in Rav shach's avi ezri is still a mystery to me.

someone using Torah to make money to me seems completely wrong

There is a pretty straight forward law that one is not allowed to make money by learning or teaching Torah. But as for shechita I can see the point of having a rav to check the knife and signs of possible traif. I can also see the point of a Kollel where people accept charity in order to continue learning Torah. That is to say, that I can see in positive light the yeshivot and kollels where people really want to learn Torah, and accept a stipend in order to be able to continue to learn. But the position of someone using Torah to make money to me seems completely wrong. Rav Naftali Troup was one of a few great Torah sage in Lithuania before WWII, and there were problems in Europe with the Litvak Torah World. Somone wrote a letter to Naftali Troup why asking, "Why he did not come to America?" And he answering a letter all rabanim in the USA use Torah to make money. In his words, “In America, Torah is a business.” And he added, “They are all trying to sell their brand.” The problem in the USA in the religious world is that religious people think that they are righteous.

אם אתה מסתכל על רבינו יצחק בעמוד י''ח של בבא בתרא אז הנושא נראה ברור. רבא הולך כמו החכמים שמחייבים את הגורם לנזק להוציא את חפצו מהמקום. ואף על פי שכל הפוסקים מחזיקים בדין כר' יוסי שגורס שמי שיכול להינזק צריך להוציא את חפצו מהמקום, וכמעט אוניברסליים המחזיקים בדעת שרבא חזר בו, וחל רק במקרה של חפירת בור ליד גבול, עדיין אני חושב שהפוסקים נמשכו לשני כיוונים מנוגדים. מצד אחד הגמרא אומרת אחר כך שהדין הוא כמו ר' יוסי. מאידך, הדין תמיד כרבא חוץ ביע''ל כג''ם. הדרך היחידה להחזיק בשני הניגודים הללו היא ללכת עם רבינו תם ולקבוע שר' יוסי מסכים כאשר מדובר ב"החצים שלו גורמים נזק ישיר" ולומר שלזה רבא מתכוון. ולי נראה שהכי טוב ללכת עם רבינו יצחק שמסביר את הנושא בצורה פשוטה יותר. לפיכך, הנושא יהיה כזה. "אם רבא צודק, אז איך נמצא מקרה של הדבורים ליד הגבול כפי ר' יוסי? עונה רב פפא "מדובר במכירה", [והדבורים אינן גורמות נזק לדעת החכמים, אבל לר' יוסי כן והדבורים באו אחר החרדל. ובנקודה זו, כיון שר' יוסי סובר שהדבורים גורמות נזק, היה אומר גם אם היו שם קודם, יש להרחיקן]. אז למה שהחכמים יקבעו שיש להרחיק את פשתן(משרה) מהירקות? תשובה: על כל מה שגורם לנזק שיילקח מהמקום. ורבא הוא כמו החכמים. אם היית הולך עם רבינו תם, קשה לראות מדוע, ובאיזה נקודה בגמרא שהוא אמור לחזור בו מגישתו, זה מלבד שאר השאלות שהרמב''ן מביא נגד הדרך של רוב ראשונים מבינים ר' תם ור' חננאל. איך לענות על הסתירה בהלכה? הייתי אומר סוגיות חלוקות