The Rambam (Mamrim 2:2) writes that if one beit din enacts a law or custom,

another beit din cannot undo it unless the second court is greater in wisdom and numbers.
(See the Rambam on how to define these qualities.) He adds that this is true even if the
reason for the law no longer applies. No matter the case, all d’rabanan laws remain in
force unless another court, greater than the original court, abolishes it. The Ra’avad
argues with the Rambam, and points to our gemara (31b) as his proof.

Grape vines in their fourth year are called neta r’vai. The Torah says that the
owner of such grapes must take them to Yerushalayim and eat them there or he may
redeem the grapes onto money and use the money to buy food in Yerushalayim. The
rabanan made a law, though, that if someone lives within a day’s trip of Yerushalayim he
must bring the grapes themselves and not redeem them onto money. This multitude of
grapes would beautify the markets of Yerushalayim and provide for a festive scene in the
city especially on the chagim.

Our gemara says that after the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash Rabban
Yochanan ben Zakai abolished this law, permitting even those who lived close to
Yerushalayim to redeem their fruits and not actually bring them. The Ra’avad asks,
according to the Rambam, how could he do this? Even if the reason for the law no longer
applied because Yerushalayim had been destroyed, how could Rabban Yochanan ben
Zakai abolish the decree of an earlier and presumably greater court? From here, the
Ra’avad proves that when the reason for the law no longer applies, even a smaller court
can abolish the laws of a greater one.

The Kesef Mishneh argues the simplest possible defense for the Rambam. He
writes that although we generally assume that earlier generations were greater than later
ones, it’s not always true. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai was such an exception. He was
not only the greatest talmid chacham of his generation, but he was even greater than the
leaders of previous generations. He could therefore overturn the rulings of earlier courts,
because his court was actually greater. Our gemara therefore doesn’t contradict the
Rambam’s ruling in anyway.

Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l in his commentary on the Rambam, Avi
Ezri, offers another explanation for the Rambam. The Tosfot Yom Tov (Ma’asar Sheni
5:2) explains that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai didn’t merely allow for people to redeem
their fruits and not bring them to Yerushalayim, rather he decreed that a person must
redeem them. When the Beit Hamidsah stood we wanted people to bring fruits to the city
to make it beautiful, but after its destruction we wanted just the opposite. We didn’t want
to beatify a Yerushalyim that was ruled by foreign nations. Therefore Rabban Yochanan
ben Zakai declared a person should not bring his fruits, but rather he should redeem them.

The Avi Ezri explains that a smaller court cannot abolish or cancel the decrees of
greater courts; however they can actively make their own laws even if it will cause an
earlier decree to be passively violated. (If the rabbis can make a law that will cause a
person to passively violate a Torah law, as we discussed earlier, they can certainly make
a law that will passively violate a rabbinic law.) According to the Tosfot Yom Tov,
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai didn’t merely undo the earlier law to bring the fruits, rather
he instituted his own law to not bring them. This explains why even according to the
Rambam who says that a smaller court can’t abolish the laws of a greater court, still
Rabbanan Yochanan ben Zakai could declare that people should no longer bring their
fruits to Yerushalayim.