Explanation: It is speaking about the Shir of the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim - where they (the Levi'im) sang the weekday Shir, thinking that the witnesses would not arrive any more that day, so they treated it as a weekday.

Explanation (cont.): However witnesses came after Minchah and it turned out that it was Kodesh.

. Refuted Explanation: The Gemara is not saying that they said the weekday Shir of the morning Tamid ...

. Refutation: Because even if the witnesses would have come before the bringing of the morning Tamid, they would have said the weekday Shir, as the Gemara says in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 30: and 31a) ...

Reason: Seeing as most years they did not arrive so early.

Question: Rabeinu Peretz asked - why there is no Kilkul regarding the Musaf? Why they were only concerned about the Tamid and not about the fact that when the witnesses came after Minchah-time, they had already brought the Tamid ...

Question (cont.): In which case they could no longer bring the Musaf, as the Torah writes "And he shall burn on it the fat-pieces of the Shelamim", from which we Darshen in Yoma (Daf 33.) 'On it (on the Tamid shel Shachar) shall you bring all your Korbanos' - and no Korban can be brought after it (i.e. after the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim)?

Answer #1: And he answers that even if the witnesses came after the Korban Tamid, the Musafin are nevertheless brought ...

Reason: Because where it is inevitable is different.

Support: Like we find by a Mechusar Kipurim on Erev Pesach, who brings his Kaparah even after the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim has been brought, in order to eat the Pesach that night.

Proof: And so we say in Perek Tamid Nishchat (Pesachim, Daf 59. And 59:)

Answer #2: Moreover, we say in 'Tamid Nishchat' (Ibid.) that the Asei of a Tzibur overrides the Asei of Hashlamah, because it is stronger.

Support: As the Gemara says there 'The Asei of Pesach, which is subject to Kareis, overrides that of Hashlamah, which is not.

Refuted Answer: Some commentaries want to explain that one first brings the Tamid and stipulates that 'Should witnesses do not arrive, it will be the Korban Tamid; but if they do, then it will be the Musaf, after which they bring the Korban Tamid and the other Korbanos.

Refutation: But this is not correct, since it is written explicitly that they recited the weekday Shir together with the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim.

Clarification (Part #1): Rashi explains that the people living in Eretz Yisrael, who declare Rosh Chodesh through a sighting of the moon and who therefore observe only one day, and who observe two days only when the witnesses arrive after Minchah.

Clarification (Part #1 [cont.]): This changed for them with Takanah of Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, since they then observe only one day, even if the witnesses arrive only after Minchah.

Clarification (Part #1 [cont.]): And even on the occasions that they observe two days - such as when witnesses did not come at all, that is due to a Safek, in which case the two days are two Kedushos, since they do not observe two days on account of a Minhag.

Conclusion: Consequently, for them the egg is permitted.

Clarification (Part #2): But for the people living in Chutz la'Aretz it is Asur ...

Clarification (Part #2 [cont.]): Seeing as continue to observe two days as they did before. In that case, the Takanah changed nothing as far as they are concerned, since they began to observe two days and at no time did they switch to one day.

Clarification (Part #2 [concl.]): So we cannot say that they are observing two days because of a Safek, only due a Minhag, since the original Minhag never changed.

Question: Rebbi Yossi says in Eruvin (Daf 39. & 39:) with regard to the two days of Rosh ha'Shanah - 'If it is laid on the first day it is forbidden on the second day'.

Question (cont.): Now Rebbi Yossi lived in Eretz Yisrael after the Churban. If so, they were two Kedushos, so why did he forbid the egg?

Refuted Answer: One cannot answer that he was referring to the period prior to the Churban, because then what difference would it make - 'What was, was!'

Query: And if one suggests that he was referring to after the Churban, and he declared the egg forbidden - to the people of Bavel, according to whom it was one Kedushah.

Refutation: That is incorrect, since Rebbi Yossi lived in Eretz Yisrael, so why would he issue a P'sak concerning Bavel?

Answer: Really Rebbi Yossi was referring to the period prior to the Churban ...

Refuted Question: And one cannot 'What was, was?' ...

Refutation: Since the P'sak that he was issuing applied even after the Churban - with regard to the people of Bavel.

Extrapolated Ruling: There are some commentaries who want to extrapolate from here that those Charamos that Beis-Din enact to last until Pesach or some other time, require annulling when that time arrives, even though the time has elapsed.

Source: Like we find here, where ha'Kadosh-Baruch-Hu forbade intimacy on account of Matan Torah, so that they automatically knew that after the three days until the Torah was given had passed, it was permitted; yet Hash-m needed to specifically permit it.

Refutation: This is not the case however, since here no specific time was given, seeing as the Torah merely said .Be prepared for three times ... ", by which it meant 'Prepare yourselves for the event that will take in three days' time!'

Reason: For had the Torah said "Be prepared three days (without the 'Lamed') in "li'Sheloshes Yamim", we could have inferred that just as it was necessary to permit intimacy (at har Sinai) so too, will it be necessary to permit the above Charamos.

Reason (cont.): But since it did not, the inference is that the Torah needed to permit it to counter "Do not approach your wives", which implied permanently, just as they were forbidden before Matan Torah for three days.

Conclusion: As for Charamos which Beis-Din place for a specified time period, once that time period has passed, it has passed, and it is no longer necessary to specifically annul them (See also Tosfos Sanhedtin, 59: DH 'le'Chol Davar').

Question: If he holds that Kedushah Rishonah Lo Kidshah ... ' (The initial Kedushah (of Eretz Yisrael) was sanctified only temporarily but not permanently)' how will the poor then benefit from this? Since they would then need to redeem it before eating it ...

Question (cont.): Bearing in mind that Yerushalayim had no wall, and there was nowhere where they able to eat it (only to redeem it before eating it)?

Answer #1: According to Rashi there is no problem, since he explains that according to Rebbi Eliezer, 'Kedushah Rishonah Kidshah le'Asid Lavo ... ', in which case the poor were able to bring their fruit to Yerushalmi and o eat it there without having to redeem it.

Answer #2: But eve if he holds 'Lo Kidshah le'Asid Lavo', the poor would nevertheless benefit - due to the principle that 'Even Hekdesh to the value of a Manah, that one redeemed on a P'rutah is redeemed'. Moreover, this is permitted even Lechatchilah nowadays, as we learned in Erchin (Daf 29.).

Clarification: Explanation: 'Indeed, the Torah writes "el Mul ha'Har ha'Hu", which implies as long as it retains its sanctity - i.e. as long as the Shechinah was resting on it it was forbidden (to ascend it); but once it departed, it was permitted. In that case, why did it need to add "bi'Me'shoch ha'Yovel"?

Question: But the Pasuk "el Mul ha'Har ha'Hu" was written in connection with the second Luchos, whereas "bi'Me'shoch ha'Yovel" was written in connection with the first ones. Consequently, had the Torah not written "bi'Me'shoch ha'Yovel". We would not have known that permission to ascend Har Sinai with regard to the first Luchos?

Explanation #1: So Rashi explains that the Shechinah did not depart from the mountain from the day of Matan Torah until the day that the Mishkan was erected, and (even) until the twentieth of Iyar of the second year when the Cloud departed. In that case, the authorization to depart contained in "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel" did not occur until the second year ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): By which time "el Mul ha'Har ha'Hu" (which implies permission to ascend) had already been said, as Tosfos explained (This is how Rashi explains it).

Refutation #1: It is a Dochek however, since "bi'Meshoch ha'Yoveil" implies that even on the day that the Torah was given they would be allowed to ascend once the Shofar blast was extended ...

Refutation #1 (cont.): Seeing as the 'voice' of the Shofar was only heard by the first Luchos in Sivan, in which case the Heter of "bi'Meshoch ha'Yoveil" cannot possibly have referred to the second year?

Refutation #2: Furthermore, since that Pasuk ("el Mul ... ") specifically implies a Heter, as Tosfos explained, it would not need another Heter ...

Precedent: Like Charamos after the time-period has expired, as Tosfos explained above (at the end of the previous Amud).

Explanation #2: Therefore the explanation is as follows - 'Ta Sh'ma: Why do we need "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel". Bear in mind that without it, they ought logically to have been allowed to ascend the mountain, seeing as they were only forbidden to ascend on account of the Shechinah? So once the Shechinah departed, they were automatically permitted to do so?

Explanation #2 (cont.): And when it continues 'Indeed (it is written "el Mul ha'Har ha'Hu") - that is to counter the suggestion that "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel" came to permit ascending when the voice of the Shofar stops - even if the Shechinah had not yet departed ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): A Heter which we would not have known from a S'vara.

Explanation #2 (cont.): In which case one cannot resolve anything.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is impossible to say that (the Gemara is now saying), since the Pasuk writes "Gam ha'Tzon ve'ha'Bakar Al Yir'u" by the second Luchos, even though the Shofar was not blown.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And one can assume that by the first Luchos too, the prohibition of ascending the mountain lasted only as long as the Shechinah was on it, even after the voice of the Shofar stopped. If so "bi'Meshoch ha'Yovel: comes to permit climbing the mountain (not when the voice of the Shofar stops, but) when the Shechinah departs.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And this Heter we know already from a S'vara.

Explanation #2 (cont.): From there we can extrapolate that 'One needs another Beis-Din to permit it'.

Question: But did he himself not institute that Beis-Din should accept the witnesses all day?

Answer (Explanation #1): Rashi explains that that is specifically with regard to counting the Yamim-Tovim from the first day, even if they arrive only after Minchah ...

Answer (cont.): But as far as making the second day Kodesh is concerned, the original Takanah did not change.

Question: From where does he (Rashi) get the S'vara that the Takanah was confined to counting the Yamim-Tovim from that day ...

Question (cont.): But that regarding Yom-Tov, the second day Yom-Tov remains Kadosh, in which case the egg will be forbidden?

Question (cont.): Why can we not say that once he instituted that they should accept the witnesses all day, the second day is Kadosh only mi'Safek, in which case the two days are two Kadosh and the egg is permitted?

Answer (Explanation #2): Consequently, Tosfos concurs with Rabeinu Tam, who amends the text to 'Mi Lo Modeh she'Im Lo Ba'u ... (does he not agree that if the witnesses did not come ... )'?

Question: The Kashya remains however, that since the witnesses did not arrive, the two days are Kadosh only mi'Safek, in which case they are two Kedushos, and the egg ought to be permitted?

Answer: The explanation must therefore be as follows: 'Because if the witnesses only came close to nightfall, which fell immediately after their testimony, before Beis-Din had time to accept their testimony, then they could nevertheless have performed some Melachah, but declined to do so ...

Conclusion: This is a proof that the two days are one Kedushah.

Implied Question: And when he (Raban Yochanan ben Zakai instituted to receive the witnesses all day ...

Answer: That speaks in a case where the witnesses arrived during the day, either before Minchah or immediately after it.

Reinstating Rashi: Having said that, it is no longer necessary to erase the original text 'Im Ba'u Eidim ... ' (as Tosfos explained).

Reinstating Rashi (cont.): And it is possible to reinstate Rashi's explanation. And as for the Kashya ' Where does Rashi get this S'vara' ...

Reinstating Rashi (cont.): This is what the Gemara means - 'Does Raban Yochanan ben Zakai not concede ... ' - with reference to before the Churban, when they were one Kedushah?

Conclusion: In that case, after the Churban too, when they fixed two days, they are one Kedushah, just as they were before the Churban (See also Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).