The gemara on the bottom of the page tells us that in the second bais hamikdash they didnt have so many people and brings a pasuk from Ezrah 40300 people were there
Why is this a proff that the second BH didnt have so many people if ezrah was in the begginning before all the jews arived later on in history the people in the bais hamikdash were a lot there is a gemarah that tells of a roman who counted the kidnys of the korban pesach and there were over one million korban pesach
why did the gemarah bring the pasuk that sounds like only a few people were in the second bais hamikdah?
menachem friederwitzer, isreal
This is a very good question and the only answer I can suggest at the moment is that the Gemara at this stage is discussing what the Halacha was at the beginning of the period of the Bayis Sheni but later on there would be a different Halacha concerning how long one must announce the lost item.
This question requires further thought.
Kesivah vaChasimah Tovah
Dovid Bloom
I found, bs'd, that my answer above is on the lines of sefer "Tapuchei Zahav" on Bava Metzia:-
The Tapuchei Zahav, by Rav Yitzchak Pinchas Goldwasser shilta; the Mashgiach of the Or Yisrael Yeshiva in Petach Tikvah; asks this question. He cites Midrash Rabah on Shir HaShirim end Parsha 1, which states that the Beis Hamikdash gave Klal Yisrael a great blessing for bearing lots of children. The Midrash states that the verse cited in our Gemara; that the population was only 42,360; only applied before the Beis Hamikdash was built. but afterwards Rabbi Yochanan said that there were 600,000 cites between Gevet and Antipras, each of which produced double the number that came out of Egypt.
Tapuchei Zahav writes that we must force ourselves to say that the Mishnah here only discusses the period at the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash but he writes that it still requires fuirther study why Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi wrote in the Mishnah a Halacha that only applied at the latter period.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Answer to question of Tapuchei Zahav:
I wrote above that Tapuchei Zahav asked why did Rebbe Yehudah Hanasi write a Halacha that is only relevant to the time of the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdash? However I want to suggest an answer to this question and point out that we have other Mishnayos that relate to this period. The first Mishnah in the last chapter of Kidushin tells us that 10 Yuchesin; different kinds of people unfit for standard marriages; went up from Bavel. The situation with these Yuchesin must have been considerably in the time of Rebbe; who lived several hundred years after Ezra brought back the Jewish people from the Babyloinan exile; but Rebbe still mentioned this in his Mishnah. There are, no doubt, many Halachot that can be learnt from this, even though this may be more indirect.
There is an important principle to be aware of here:- the Mishnah is not a Halacha book! This is stated in Gemara Sotah 22a; which tells us that people who pasken Halachot from the Mishnah destroy the world. The Mishnah is a collection of Halachic opinions (see Rashi Bava Metzia 33b DH BiMai) but not of practical Halachic conclusions. This is why, on reflection, I think it is not difficult that the Mishnah here Bava Metzia 28a refers to the early period of Bayis Sheni.
Yasher Koach
Dovid Bloom
This question was asked to the Rabbi of Johannesburg:-
I also found in She'eilas Yitzchak, by Rabbi Yitzchak Kosovsvky Shachor (1877-1951, who in his later years was the Rabbi of Johannesburg), siman 103 page 185 #4 that his correspondent seemed to understand that the figure mentioned here of 42,360 was the population throughout the entire period of Bayis Sheni. Rav Kosovsky writes that this certainly cannot be true, and one of the sources he cites to support this is Pesachim 64b where King Agripas commanded the kidneys to be taken from the korban Pesach.
Again it seems clear that Sheeilas Yitzchak understood that the figure given in the Gemara was only that of the beginning of the period.
Dovid Bloom
Summary of answer:-
Since a few ideas were mentioned above, I think it is worth summarizing and saying that the Mishnah mentions a Halacha that applied at the time of the beginning of the second Bais Hamikdash. It is not surprising that the Mishnah mentions a Halacha that only applied in this period because the Mishnah is a collection of Halachos that applied at different periods in Jewish history (for instance see the Mishnah Shevuos 14a that one may only add on to the city of Yerushalayim and the courtyards with a king, Novi and Urim veTumim etc., and it seems that this could have only happened in the time of the first Beis Hamikdash or at the beginning of Bayis Shaini; see Shevous 16a which discusses what happened in the time of Ezra and Nechemiah).
Dovid Bloom