Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses one of the enactments made by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai after the Temple was destroyed:

“From the time that the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that partaking from the new crop on the day of waving the omer, the sixteenth of Nisan, is completely prohibited and one may partake of the new crop only the next day.

The Gemara analyzes this statement. What is the reason for this? It is that soon the Temple will be rebuilt, and people will say: Last year when there was no Temple, didn’t we eat of the new crop as soon as the eastern horizon was illuminated, as the new crop was permitted immediately upon the advent of the morning of the sixteenth of Nisan? Now, too, let us eat the new grain at that time.”

The Mishna Succah (41a) also records this takannah of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and adds another enactment:

“Originally, during the Temple era, the lulav was taken in the Temple for seven days, and in the rest of the country outside the Temple it was taken for one day. Once the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted an ordinance that the lulav should be taken even in the rest of the country for seven days, in commemoration of the Temple.”

Tosafos (Succah ibid.) notes that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai made many takannos throughout his life. Why did the Mishna only mention these two? The answer is that these two were made at the same time, specifically in response to the destruction of the Temple. Tosafos concludes with an unresolved question. He says that if so, it is puzzling why the Mishna in Menachos does not do the same thing. The Mishna here only enumerates the enactment regarding the Omer but does not mention the lulav and the four species.

Daf al Daf reports a conversation that took place between Rav Velvel of Brisk and Rav Moshe Betzalel (the brother of the Imrei Emes) while they were taking a walk together at a health spa town known as Shchavinitz or Szczawnica. (As an interesting aside, 100 years ago, when things were less medicalized, if someone felt burnt out or stressed, they didn’t go on SSRI’s. Instead, they would go to a place with fresh mountain air to rest and recover—the ancient equivalent of breath work.)

Rav Velvel spoke out the question of Tosafos, and Rav Moshe Betzalel offered the following creative answer. Even though both enactments were in response to the destruction of the Temple, they came from different perspectives. The need to create a remembrance and wave the four species for all seven days implies that the exile is going to be for a lengthy period, and so we must find ways to keep the memory alive. However, the enactment forbidding the new grain until the end of the 16th is predicated on the assumption that the Temple will be rebuilt in any upcoming year, so we want to be careful that there isn’t confusion between the law of when there is no sacrifice and the law of when there is a sacrifice. This enactment has the implication that the Temple will be rebuilt soon.

Therefore, in the Mishna in Succah, where the enactment regarding waving the four species for the entire seven days was discussed, if that were the only enactment mentioned it would leave people with a depressed feeling. The implication of the enactment was that it may be a very long time until the Temple is rebuilt, and so we need to remember it. This is why they added the other enactment of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai regarding the Omer sacrifice, which is predicated on the assumption that the Temple could be rebuilt any year. However, in Menachos the main takannah under discussion is the one regarding the Omer sacrifice. Since that is inherently optimistic and presumes a soon-to-come rebuilding of the Temple, it was not necessary to mention the enactment regarding the four species.

Reportedly, Rav Velvel was greatly impressed by that answer. I find the answer interesting because it is based on a sociological and psychological sensitivity, and not a lomdus. This itself is a novel idea: to consider that the Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi may have organized his teachings based on the feelings they would evoke and not the actual logical similarities or disparities. I wonder if Rav Velvel was more able to enjoy such a vort because he was taking a relaxing stroll and wasn’t thinking of it from an intellectual perspective.