Reference for Bava Metzia 55:24

ואמאי לימא רגל שלישי דלא אתי לאחלופי בשני שני נמי

— Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty. The latter refers to the days of the First Temple, the former [sc. our Mishnah] to the Second. During the First Temple, when the Israelites were extremely numerous, as it is written of them, Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea in multitude,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I Kings IV, 20. ');">²²</span> such a long period was required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Owing to the communities being widely scattered.] ');">²³</span> But during the Second Temple, when the Israelites were not very numerous, as it is written of them, The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra II, 64. ');">²⁴</span> such a long time was unnecessary. Thereupon Abaye protested to him: But is it not written, So the priests and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and some of the people and the Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neh. VII. 73. [So that they thus lived scattered 'in their (former) cities' despite their paucity in numbers.] ');">²⁵</span> and that being so, the logic is the reverse. During the first Temple, when the Israelites were very numerous, the people united [for travelling purposes], and caravan companies were to be found travelling day and night, so long a period was unnecessary, and three days were sufficient. But during the second Temple, when the Israelites were not very numerous, the people did not join together [for travelling], and caravan companies were not available for proceeding day and night, this long period was necessary! — Raba said: There is no difference between the first Temple and the Second: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble in respect of a lost article. Rabina said: This [sc. our Mishnah] proves that when the proclamation was made, [the loss of] a garment was announced.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the actual article lost, the claimant having to submit identification marks. ');">²⁶</span> For should you think, a lost article was proclaimed [unspecified], another day should have been added to enable one to examine his belongings! Hence it follows that [the loss of] a garment was proclaimed. This proves it. Raba said: You may even say that a mere loss was proclaimed: the Rabbis did not put one to unreasonable trouble in respect of a lost article. Our Rabbis taught: At the first Festival [of proclamation] it was announced: 'This is the first Festival;' at the second Festival it was announced: 'This is the second Festival;' but at the third a simple announcement was made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without stating that it was the third time of proclamation. But the first and second had to be specified, so that the loser should know that he still had a third, and not be compelled to hurry back home. ');">²⁷</span> Why so; let him announce: 'It is the third Festival'? — So that it should not be mistaken for the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through faulty hearing. ');">²⁸</span> But the second, too,

Jastrow