Answer #2: Beraisa #2 cannot be R. Yehudah, for it says 'when the majority sins... Beis Din brings a Par for them.' R. Yehudah holds that the Tzibur (congregation) brings Parim, and not Beis Din!

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If seven of the Shevatim sinned (due to a Hora'ah), each Shevet brings a Par.

(Rav Nachman citing Shmuel): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, but Chachamim obligate an individual who relies on Beis Din.

Question: What is the source that R. Meir and Chachamim argue about this?

Answer (Beraisa #3 - R. Meir): If Beis Din gave a Hora'ah, and (they) transgressed, they are exempt (there will be different explanations of who is exempt);

Chachamim say, they are liable.

Question: Who transgressed?

If Beis Din did, all agree that they are exempt!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: If Beis Din transgresses due to Hora'ah, perhaps they bring a Par!

Rejection: "Ha'Kahal v'Asu" teaches that a Par is brought only when the Tzibur sins due to Beis Din's Hora'ah.

Answer #1: Rather, the majority of the Tzibur sinned.

Rejection: If so, R. Meir would not exempt (Beis Din)!

Answer #2: Rather, the minority of the Tzibur sinned (they argue about whether the individuals bring Chata'os);

R. Meir exempts an individual who acted according to Beis Din, and Chachamim obligate.

Rejection #1 (Rav Papa): Really, all exempt an individual who followed Beis Din. They argue about whether Beis Din can complete the majority of Yisrael (who sinned).

Rejection #2: We can defend Answer #1. The majority of the Tzibur sinned;

Chachamim hold like R. Shimon, who says that both the Tzibur and Beis Din bring Parim. (R. Meir obligates Beis Din and exempts the Tzibur).

Rejection #3: We can explain Beraisa #3 a third way. One Shevet sinned due to its own Beis Din. Chachamim hold like R. Yehudah;

(Beraisa): If a Shevet acted according to a (mistaken) Hora'ah of its Beis Din, that Shevet brings a Par. (This is R. Yehudah's opinion in the Mishnah 5a.)

Rejection #4: The case is, six Shevatim sinned, comprising the majority of Yisrael, or seven Shevatim even if they are the minority of Yisrael;

Version #1 (our text): (R. Meir's opinion in) Beraisa #3 is like R. Shimon ben Elazar cites him;

Version #2 (R. Chananel (printed on Daf 4a)): Chachamim of the Beraisa are R. Shimon ben Elazar. (The Tana'im in the Beraisa argue about R. Meir's opinion); (end of Version #2)

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar citing R. Meir): If six Shevatim sinned, comprising the majority of Yisrael, or seven Shevatim, even the minority of Yisrael, Beis Din are liable. (According to Version #1, in Beraisa #3 R. Meir exempts the individuals. According to Version #2, he exempts even Beis Din.)

(Rav Asi): Regarding Hora'ah, we consider the majority of Yisraelim in Eretz Yisrael - "... all Yisrael with (Shlomo), a great Kahal, from Chamas until Nachal Mitzrayim";

Question: It says "all Yisrael." Why must it say "from Chamas until Nachal Mitzrayim"?

Answer: This teaches that "Kahal" (the Tzibur) refers only to Yisraelim inside Eretz Yisrael.

Clearly, if the majority sinned, and then they became the minority (some died), R. Shimon and Chachamim argue (like they argue about a one who sinned, and then he was appointed Nasi or Kohen Gadol. There, Chachamim say that he brings the Chatas of a commoner (a Kisvah or Se'irah), like when he sinned. R. Shimon says that if he learned of his sin only after he was appointed, he is exempt. Likewise, if the majority sinned but they found out only after they became the minority, R. Shimon exempts.)

Question: If the minority sinned, and then they became the majority (some non-sinners died), do R. Shimon and Chachamim argue also about this?

R. Shimon follows (the law that applies at) the time we find out, so they are liable. Chachamim follow the time that they sinned, so they are exempt;

Or, they do not argue?

Objection: We find that R. Shimon also follows the time of Yedi'ah (finding out). I.e. if at the time of Yedi'ah, his Din already changed (e.g. he became Nasi or Kohen Gadol, who bring different Korbanos) from his Din at the time of the sin, he is exempt;

We never find that he follows only Yedi'ah. If he did, if he became Nasi or Kohen Gadol (after sinning), he would bring the Korban of a Nasi or Kohen Gadol! (Rather, he also follows the time that they sinned, so all agree that they are exempt.)

Question #1: If Beis Din permitted Chelev; and a minority of Yisrael ate Chelev, and Beis Din retracted, and more people (who did not hear the retraction) ate, making a majority, what is the law?

Since the first transgressors found out in between, they do not join to make a majority;

Or, since they all ate Chelev, they join?

Question #2: If we say that since they all ate Chelev, they join up, if Beis Din permitted Chelev on the stomach and Chelev on the small intestines, what is the law?

Since these Isurim are learned from different verses, minorities that transgressed the two Isurim do not join;

Or, since they are both Chelev, they join?

Question #3: If we say that since they are both Chelev, they join, if Beis Din permitted blood and Chelev, what is the law?

Since these are two different Isurim, they do not join;

Or, since one brings the same Chatas for transgressing either (a Kisvah or Se'irah), they join up.

Question #4: If we say that since one brings the same Korban for either, they join, if Beis Din permitted Chelev and idolatry, what is the law?

Since the Chatas brought for idolatry is different (it must be a Se'irah), they do not join up;

Or, since both are Chayavei Kerisus, they join?

This is unresolved. (Rambam - wherever it says 'if we say that... ', the Halachah follows the assumption.)

Question: If Beis Din permitted Chelev; a minority of Yisrael ate Chelev, the Beis Din died, and the next Beis Din retracted, if more people (who did not hear the retraction) ate, making a majority, what is the law?

Surely, according to the opinion that Beis Din brings the Par, since the Beis Din that erred died, no Par is brought.

The question is according to the opinion that the Tzibur brings the Par:

Since the Tzibur is here, they bring it.

Or, perhaps they bring only if the Beis Din that erred learn of their mistake.

This question is unresolved.

(R. Yonason): If a Beis Din of 100 Chachamim gathered to give a ruling, they are liable only if all 100 agreed;

We learn from "v'Im Kol Adas Yisrael Yishgu" - all the judges must err.

Support (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Hoshayah): The majority always counts as the whole (had it said 'Adas', this would mean the majority). Therefore, "Kol Adas" means every one.

(Mishnah): If a member of the Sanhedrin or a qualified Chacham knew that the Sanhedrin erred, and transgressed, whether he transgressed with them, after them, or without them, he brings a Korban, because he did not rely on Beis Din.

Inference: Someone else (who did not know that Beis Din erred) would be exempt.

Question: Why is he exempt? The Hora'ah was not unanimous (one member knew that they erred). It should be as if there was no Hora'ah!

Answer: The case is, the member (who knew that they erred) nodded his head, showing agreement to the Hora'ah.

Question (Mishnah): If Beis Din ruled and a member of the Beis Din knew that they erred, and he told them, Beis Din is exempt;

Inference: Had he kept quiet, they would be liable, even though it was not unanimous!

Answer: Here also, he nodded his head.

Question (against R. Yonason - Rav Mesharshiya - Beraisa): Chachamim relied on R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Eliezer bar Tzadok, who say that we do not impose a decree on the Tzibur unless most of the Tzibur can fulfill it.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They learn from "ba'Me'erah Atem Ne'arim v'Osi Atem Kov'im ha'Goy Kulo."

Even though it says "Kulo (entire)", it only means the majority. This refutes R. Yonason.

Question: If so, what do we learn from "Kol Adas"?

Answer: A Hora'ah is valid only if the entire Sanhedrin was present.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): If 10 sit in judgment, all are responsible (if they err).

Question: This is obvious!

Answer: The Chidush is, even a Talmid in front of his Rebbi is responsible (if he knows that they erred and he is silent).

When Rav Huna would judge a case, he would gather 10 Chachamim, to share the burden (lest he err).

When Rav Ashi had to rule whether an animal is Treifah, he would gather 10 butchers, to share the burden.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If Beis Din ruled, realized their mistake and retracted, and Reuven acted according to their initial ruling, whether or not Beis Din brought a Par, he is exempt;

R. Elazar says, it is Safek (if this is considered relying on Beis Din, therefore, he brings an Asham Taluy (the Korban for one who is unsure whether he must bring a Chatas).

If he was sitting in his house, this is considered a Safek. If he went abroad, he is exempt.

R. Akiva: I agree that when he goes abroad, it is more reasonable to exempt than to obligate.

Ben Azai: What is the difference whether he was at home or travelling?

R. Akiva: Someone at home could have (asked and) heard if Beis Din retracted. A traveler was unable to.

If the Hora'ah totally uprooted a Mitzvah, e.g. Beis Din said that the Torah does not forbid Nidah or Melachah on Shabbos or idolatry, they are exempt;

If they permitted some Isurim of a Mitzvah, they are liable. E.g. they forbade Nidah, but exempted one who has relations with a Shomeres Yom k'Neged Yom (a woman who saw blood during one of the 11 days of Zivah, she is forbidden like a Nidah). Or, they forbade Melachah on Shabbos, but exempted one who transfers from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim. Or, they forbade idolatry, but exempted one who bows. "V'Nelam Davar" excludes when the entire Mitzvah was uprooted.

Version #1 (Gemara - Rav): R. Shimon exempts because he acted according to Beis Din.

Version #2 (Rav): R. Shimon holds that if a Hora'ah spread throughout the Tzibur, it exempts those who acted according to it. We attribute his transgression to the Hora'ah. We do not say that he himself forgot.

Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon): If (Beis Din realized that they erred and) Par He'elem Davar must be brought (and Se'irim, if idolatry was transgressed), we collect money from the Tzibur special for this;

R. Yehudah says, we buy them from Terumas ha'Lishkah (from the half-Shekalim that all men give every year to buy all Korbanos Tzibur).

Summation of question: R. Shimon says that a special collection is made to atone for the mistake, so surely everyone knows that Beis Din retracted! (How can we attribute his transgression to the Hora'ah?)

Answer #1: The case is, they did not tell him for what they collect (he did not know that Beis Din retracted).

Answer #2: The case is, he was not in the city when the collection was made.

Answer #3: Rav holds like the following Tana (who switches the opinions).

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): If Par He'elem Davar (and/or Se'irim) must be brought, we collect money from the Tzibur for this;

R. Shimon says, the money is taken from Terumas ha'Lishkah.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If someone transgressed after Beis Din retracted, he is liable;

R. Shimon exempts him;

R. Eliezer says, he is in doubt;

They said in the name of Sumchus, Taluy (it depends; this will be explained).