(R. Huna): (Referring to the opinion in the Mishnah that the Shofar was blown on Shabbos not only in Yavneh, but also in every place where there as a Beis Din) The Shofar was blown with Beis Din - i.e. in their presence.

Question (Rava): We see otherwise:

The Mishnah states that there was an "additional" advantage of Yerushalayim over Yavneh - additional to what?

It could mean that in Yerushalayim, individuals would blow Shofar, whereas in Yavneh, only the Shali'ach Beis Din would blow Shofar.

But R. Yitzchak bar Yosef testified that in Yavneh, everyone would blow Shofar!

So it must mean that whereas in Yavneh the Shofar could only be blown when Beis Din was in session, in Yerushalayim the Shofar could be blown at any time.

But nevertheless in Yavneh the Shofar could be blown while Beis Din was in session - even if it was not in their presence!?

Answer: It is additional to the advantage that in Yavneh, the Shofar was only blown in the presence of Beis Din.

Some attribute R. Huna's statement to a different context:

The Pasuk teaches us that every individual must blow Shofar.

(R. Huna): The Shofar was blown with Beis Din - i.e. during the time of their session.

Question (Rava): We see otherwise:

The Shofar must be blown on Shabbos Yom Kipur of Yovel by "Ish u'Veiso."

"Ish u'Veiso" can't mean man and wife, as women are not obligated in a time-related Mitzvos Aseh!

So it must mean "Ish b'Veiso" - in his house, i.e. even not during the time of Beis Din's session!?

Answer: No, it must still be during the time of Beis Din's session.

Question (R. Sheshes): We see otherwise:

Yovel is equal to Rosh Hashanah regarding Shofar except that with Yovel, every Beis Din blows Shofar and even individuals, whereas with Rosh Hashanah only Beis Din that sanctified the month would blow Shofar, and individuals are not obligated.

What does it mean by "individuals are not obligated"?

It can't mean that individuals do not blow Shofar, as there was testimony from Yavneh that they do!

So it must mean that on Rosh Hashanah they would blow only when they were in session, whereas on Yovel, they would blow Shofar even when Beis Din was not in session!?

Answer: No, it means that on Yovel they would blow Shofar even not in the presence of Beis Din, but still only during the time when they were in session.

This rule is confirmed by another source.

Question (R. Zeira): If Beis Din have closed court and are ready to leave, is that still considered the time of Beis Din's session?

Teyku.

The Mishnah said that all towns within sight and hearing of Yerushalayim, close and able to come, would also blow Shofar on Shabbos.

"Within sight" excludes those towns that are in valleys.

"Within hearing" excludes those towns that are on hilltops.

"Close" excludes those beyond the Techum.

"Able to come" excludes those separated by a river.

Originally, Lulav was taken for seven days in the Beis ha'Mikdash, and on one day elsewhere.

After the Destruction, R. Yochanan ben Zakai decreed that it should be taken for seven days everywhere, to commemorate the Beis ha'Mikdash.

He also forbade the eating of Chadash on the sixteenth of Nisan.

Question: How do we know that there is a need for a commemoration?

Answer: The Pasuk states that someone has to care about Tziyon.

Question: Why was eating of Chadash on the sixteenth of Nisan forbidden?

Answer: When the Beis ha'Mikdash will be rebuilt, people will say that just as they ate last year on the morning of the sixteenth, so too they can eat this year (without realizing that when there is a Beis ha'Mikdash, Chadash remains forbidden until the Omer has been brought.

Question: When are we concerned about the Beis ha'Mikdash being rebuilt?

It can't be on the sixteenth of Nisan - because there would be no problem, as Chadash would indeed become permitted from the morning of the sixteenth!

It can't be on the fifteenth of Nisan - as it would be permitted from after midday, for we have learned that those who come from afar are allowed to eat it then, as it is presumed that the Omer has already been brought!

Answer: It is referring to where it is rebuilt on the afternoon or evening of the fifteenth, when there won't be time to bring the Omer.

(R. Nachman bar Yitzchak): R. Yochanan ben Zakai's decree was based on R. Yehudah's principle:

(R. Yehudah): The Pasuk forbids eating Chadash until the sixteenth.

"Until" is inclusive - i.e. the entire day of the sixteenth is forbidden.

Question: Surely we find that they argue as to whether it is forbidden d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan!?

Answer: R. Yehudah mistakenly understood R. Yochanan ben Zakai to have meant d'Rabanan.

Question: But R. Yochanan ben Zakai used the term "decreed," implying d'Rabanan?

Answer: It means that, based on the Pasuk, he decreed it.

Originally, testimony about the new moon would be accepted all day.

Once, the witnesses were delayed, and the Levi'im made a mistake with the Shir.

It was thereafter decreed that witnesses would only be accepted until Minchah.

If they come afterwards, both that day and the next day are observed as Rosh Chodesh.

After the Destruction, R. Yochanan ben Zakai decreed that testimony could be accepted all day.

Question: What was the mistake with the Shir?

Answer (from Bavel): They didn't sing at all.

Alternate answer (R. Zeira): They sang the weekday Shir with the Tamid (instead of the festival Shir).

Question: R. Zeira quoted a Beraisa that 'They instituted not to receive the witnesses after Minchah, in order that there should be sufficient time in the day to bring the Temidin, the Musafin and the drink-offerings without mishap.' Doesn't 'without mishap' imply that it was to avoid singing the wrong Shir?

Answer: Not singing it at all is the biggest mishap of all.

Question (R. Acha bar Huna): We see that they sang the Shir of the wrong day:

On the morning of the thirtieth of Elul - the Levi'im would generally sing the regular Shir of whichever day it was.

... at Musaf, if that day was declared Rosh Hashanah - "Harninu" (The Shir shel Yom for Thursday).

... at Shachris, if the witnesses came before the Tamid shel Shachar, and it was a Thursday morning - "Hasirosi" (the second half of "Harninu"). This is in order to avoid repeating the same Shir twice on the same day, where it could be avoided.

... at Musaf, in the same case, if the witnesses came after the Tamid shel Shachar - "Harninu" (even though it meant repeating it - because it was unavoidable).

We see here that, in cases of doubt, they would sing the weekday Shir, and that was why it was a case of repeating it!?

Answer: In that case, they sang the Shir because it was suited to that day anyway.