I came up with some juicy questions on this topic, but no answers. I wrote up these questions and am sharing them on the 16th of Tammuz hoping we can find answers by (or on) the 17th.
I was expecting some answers! (Teach me to not skip the italicized intro.) Maybe a reason we would care if it's 1st vs 2nd temple is that there were different sins/corruptions/confusions and it would shed light on the problems of that time and give us different openings for teshuva
I was thinking along similar lines! Still interesting that the Rambam (seemingly) IGNORES the Yerushalmi. As one of my talmidim asked (which I wrote in a comment above): If the Rambam knew about the Yerushalmi, why couldn't he have said, "ובטל התמיד מבית ראשון" just like the says about Tishah b'Av, "וחרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה"? That would keep open the teshuvah routes for both sets of sins.
The Yad Pshutah (I saw at the bottom of the Rambam that you linked to) has (seemingly) a very nice answer as to why the Rambam said it was Bayis Rishon. I would write it out... but it's late and I'm tired 😴.
As to the relevance of which Bayis - I'm wondering if it was just for record keeping? It's a good question...
Also I must say the Dall-E for this article is very impressive!
I'll save you the trouble. I already wrote and translated it, and it's where I got all the sources. The problem is: I don't think it makes sense!
-------------------------------
The Rambam’s source for this statement is the continuation of the Gemara in Taanis 28b: “From where do we know that [Apostamos] erected an idol in the Sanctuary? As it is written: ‘from the time that the tamid was removed and an abomination was placed in their name’ (Daniel 12:11).” Rabbeinu Chananel explains: “Behold! It is explicitly stated that from the time the tamid was removed and ceased, an abomination was placed in the Sanctuary, and it was already said that the tamid ceased on the 17th of Tammuz.
The pasuk in Daniel certainly refers to the destruction of the First Temple. From the [Talmudic treatment of the] topic and the words of Rabbeinu Chananel, it is clear that this is talking about the cessation of the Tamid in the First Temple. However, in the Yerushalmi – and also in that which is cited by Rabbeinu Chananel – there is also a reference to a cessation of the tamid in the Second Temple, but the incident that occurred on the 17th of Tammuz was the cessation of the tamid from the First Temple.
To elaborate: the problems are (a) the pasuk in Daniel does NOT "definitely" refer to the destruction of the First Temple, as is clear from what the meforshim write, and from the inherently cryptic nature of the prophetic pesukim in Sefer Daniel, (b) as the Yad Peshutah acknowledges, Rabbeinu Chananel cites the Yerushalmi just a few comments earlier, so how can he cite him as a support for the Rambam? (c) one of my talmidim asked, "If the Rambam knew about the Yerushalmi, why couldn't he have said, "ובטל התמיד מבית ראשון" just like the says about Tishah b'Av, "וחרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה"?
I had the same question yesterday (17th of Tammuz), and found a source on Sefaria. I believe it's the Yachin on that very Mishnah. He explains the logic that it refers to the First Temple.
If it would refer to the Second Temple, then it would have happened on the same day as the breach of the walls. Should that be so, then truly it is a single event we mourn, and not two.
I encourage you to check the source yourself because my retelling of the logic may be incomplete or inaccurate. I'll also post this answer to the Facebook post through which I found your articles (very well written by the way!).
Thank you! I'll copy and paste the Hebrew and English from Sefaria here (to save people the digital legwork) before sharing my thoughts, which I'll do after my coffee kicks in:
ובטל התמיד
כשצרו, עלי ירושלים כשנחרבה, באותו יום לא נמצאו עוד כבשים להקריב ול"נ שר"ל בימי הורקנוס וארסתבולוס כשצרו זע"ז וכן משמע נמי מב"ק [דפ"ב ב'], מיהו אי קאי אזמן חורבן, היינו זמן חורבן ראשון שצר נבוכדנצר על ירושלים ג' שנים. אבל בית שני לא משכו ימי המצור רק מניסן עד אב וא"כ כשהובקעה העיר פשיטא שפסק הכל והתמיד עמם:
"The continual offering ceased." When they laid siege to Jerusalem and it was destroyed, because on that day there were no more lambs for the daily offering. It appears to me that the this passage is referring to the days of Hyrkanus and Aristobulous (the last of the Hasmonean kings), when they laid siege to one another (during their civil war.) So it also seems from Baba Kama 82b. However, if the passage refers to the time of the destruction of the Temple then it means the destruction of the 1st Temple when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. It could not be referring to the Second Temple because then the siege only lasted from Nisan to Av, and if so when they broke into the city it is obvious that everything ceased, the continual offering included.
I'm wondering what pshat is in the yerushalmi for the Bayis Rishon. It seems like they had an arrangement with the Hellenists through the 16th of Tammuz, and then on the 17th they enemies stopped holding up their end of the deal.
Due to some merit of the nation at that time, Hashem allowed them to find two kosher animals to use on the 17th. But does that mean that the deal with the enemies began again on the 18th? Did we find even more animals after the first two? It seems the easiest answer to these questions is no. In that case, in Bayis Rishon we got 1 extra day of tamid. You could still say it ended on the 17th, just the end of the 17th. Let me know if I'm making a mistake in my interpretation.
I assume that in your first sentence you meant "for the Bayis Sheini"?
I initially read the Yerushalmi to mean that the first incident with the goats happened at some other time during that period - not necessarily in close proximity to the 17th of Tammuz. I'm getting this from the fact that it says "one time." But your comment made me realize that it WOULD be weird if the Hellenists only tried the goat trick once, and then went back to the original deal. So now I don't know what to think.
I was expecting some answers! (Teach me to not skip the italicized intro.) Maybe a reason we would care if it's 1st vs 2nd temple is that there were different sins/corruptions/confusions and it would shed light on the problems of that time and give us different openings for teshuva
I was thinking along similar lines! Still interesting that the Rambam (seemingly) IGNORES the Yerushalmi. As one of my talmidim asked (which I wrote in a comment above): If the Rambam knew about the Yerushalmi, why couldn't he have said, "ובטל התמיד מבית ראשון" just like the says about Tishah b'Av, "וחרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה"? That would keep open the teshuvah routes for both sets of sins.
The Yad Pshutah (I saw at the bottom of the Rambam that you linked to) has (seemingly) a very nice answer as to why the Rambam said it was Bayis Rishon. I would write it out... but it's late and I'm tired 😴.
As to the relevance of which Bayis - I'm wondering if it was just for record keeping? It's a good question...
Also I must say the Dall-E for this article is very impressive!
I'll save you the trouble. I already wrote and translated it, and it's where I got all the sources. The problem is: I don't think it makes sense!
-------------------------------
The Rambam’s source for this statement is the continuation of the Gemara in Taanis 28b: “From where do we know that [Apostamos] erected an idol in the Sanctuary? As it is written: ‘from the time that the tamid was removed and an abomination was placed in their name’ (Daniel 12:11).” Rabbeinu Chananel explains: “Behold! It is explicitly stated that from the time the tamid was removed and ceased, an abomination was placed in the Sanctuary, and it was already said that the tamid ceased on the 17th of Tammuz.
The pasuk in Daniel certainly refers to the destruction of the First Temple. From the [Talmudic treatment of the] topic and the words of Rabbeinu Chananel, it is clear that this is talking about the cessation of the Tamid in the First Temple. However, in the Yerushalmi – and also in that which is cited by Rabbeinu Chananel – there is also a reference to a cessation of the tamid in the Second Temple, but the incident that occurred on the 17th of Tammuz was the cessation of the tamid from the First Temple.
To elaborate: the problems are (a) the pasuk in Daniel does NOT "definitely" refer to the destruction of the First Temple, as is clear from what the meforshim write, and from the inherently cryptic nature of the prophetic pesukim in Sefer Daniel, (b) as the Yad Peshutah acknowledges, Rabbeinu Chananel cites the Yerushalmi just a few comments earlier, so how can he cite him as a support for the Rambam? (c) one of my talmidim asked, "If the Rambam knew about the Yerushalmi, why couldn't he have said, "ובטל התמיד מבית ראשון" just like the says about Tishah b'Av, "וחרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה"?
I had the same question yesterday (17th of Tammuz), and found a source on Sefaria. I believe it's the Yachin on that very Mishnah. He explains the logic that it refers to the First Temple.
If it would refer to the Second Temple, then it would have happened on the same day as the breach of the walls. Should that be so, then truly it is a single event we mourn, and not two.
I encourage you to check the source yourself because my retelling of the logic may be incomplete or inaccurate. I'll also post this answer to the Facebook post through which I found your articles (very well written by the way!).
Thank you! I'll copy and paste the Hebrew and English from Sefaria here (to save people the digital legwork) before sharing my thoughts, which I'll do after my coffee kicks in:
ובטל התמיד
כשצרו, עלי ירושלים כשנחרבה, באותו יום לא נמצאו עוד כבשים להקריב ול"נ שר"ל בימי הורקנוס וארסתבולוס כשצרו זע"ז וכן משמע נמי מב"ק [דפ"ב ב'], מיהו אי קאי אזמן חורבן, היינו זמן חורבן ראשון שצר נבוכדנצר על ירושלים ג' שנים. אבל בית שני לא משכו ימי המצור רק מניסן עד אב וא"כ כשהובקעה העיר פשיטא שפסק הכל והתמיד עמם:
"The continual offering ceased." When they laid siege to Jerusalem and it was destroyed, because on that day there were no more lambs for the daily offering. It appears to me that the this passage is referring to the days of Hyrkanus and Aristobulous (the last of the Hasmonean kings), when they laid siege to one another (during their civil war.) So it also seems from Baba Kama 82b. However, if the passage refers to the time of the destruction of the Temple then it means the destruction of the 1st Temple when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem for three years. It could not be referring to the Second Temple because then the siege only lasted from Nisan to Av, and if so when they broke into the city it is obvious that everything ceased, the continual offering included.
I'm wondering what pshat is in the yerushalmi for the Bayis Rishon. It seems like they had an arrangement with the Hellenists through the 16th of Tammuz, and then on the 17th they enemies stopped holding up their end of the deal.
Due to some merit of the nation at that time, Hashem allowed them to find two kosher animals to use on the 17th. But does that mean that the deal with the enemies began again on the 18th? Did we find even more animals after the first two? It seems the easiest answer to these questions is no. In that case, in Bayis Rishon we got 1 extra day of tamid. You could still say it ended on the 17th, just the end of the 17th. Let me know if I'm making a mistake in my interpretation.
I assume that in your first sentence you meant "for the Bayis Sheini"?
I initially read the Yerushalmi to mean that the first incident with the goats happened at some other time during that period - not necessarily in close proximity to the 17th of Tammuz. I'm getting this from the fact that it says "one time." But your comment made me realize that it WOULD be weird if the Hellenists only tried the goat trick once, and then went back to the original deal. So now I don't know what to think.
Oh you're right, I mixed up Hellenists with the Babylonians 🤣. I also don't know what to think now!