On Nisan 1–8 (Lichtenstein, p. 323)

‘From the first day of the month Nisan to the eighth, tamid was settled; mourning is forbidden’: the gloss interprets the decision about tamid as the outcome of a dispute with the Boethusians. The Ḥakamim argue against them on the basis of Num.xxviii. if., in which tamid is set in the context of offerings which all Israel have to maintain.

Cf 4.35.

On Nisan 8 to the end of the feast (Lich. p. 324)

‘From the eighth to the end of the feast, the feast of Weeks was re-established; fasting and mourning are forbidden’: the controversialists are again (according to the gloss) the Boethusians and the Ḥakamim. The commentator then adds a further discussion between ‘a certain Boethusian and Joḥanan b. Zakkai’; it is the dispute in B.Men. 65a and further comments of R. Eliezer, R. Joshua, R. Ishmael and R. Judah b. Betheyra are also recorded.

Cf. 2.17 and the further references.

On Tammuz 14 (Lich. p. 331)

‘On the fourteenth of Tammuz the book of decisions (sepher gezeroth) was abrogated’: the gloss identifies three particular issues in which the decisions of the Sadducees differed from the arguments of the Ḥakamim. In the actual argument, the disputants are the Boethusians [Lich. 1.8].