Explanation: They are the Great Sanhedrin, like we expound in Toras Kohanim "Adas Yisrael" - the special congregation in Yisrael. This is the Great Sanhedrin.

Question: This requires investigation, whether Beis Din themselves are obligated to bring a Kisvah or Se'irah;

Granted, they do not bring a bull unless the majority of the Tzibur acted according to them. In any case, they should bring a Korban Yachid;

Or, perhaps they are exempt even from a Korban Yachid.

Explanation: This Beis Din is not the Great Sanhedrin, for [any] Beis Din can permit her to remarry.

In any case, also these [women] have this law. If she did like Beis Din instructed her, she is exempt, because she relied on Beis Din.

Implied question: Why didn't he challenge Shmuel in the first version, like he asks here against Rav Dimi? (Shmuel in Version #1 holds just like Rav Dimi in Version #2!)

Answer: According to the first version, we can say that Rav Dimi comes to explain Shmuel's words.

Observation: The same applies in general regarding Hora'ah. A Talmid may not rely on his Rebbi's words until he tells him so (it is permitted to do).

Implied question: A Beraisa in Bava Basra (130b) says that we do not learn Halachah based on an episode!

Explanation: There it means that if a person tells you "I saw an episode that occurred in such a case, that they ruled so", one may not rely on his words. Perhaps he did not investigate well, and that episode was slightly different;

[One may not rely on his words] unless he says "Halachah in practice", i.e. unless he brings to him amidst the Halachah that the matter that he tells you is correct. This is because the Gemara and the words of the Amora'im are primary;

Source - Citation (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah): We do not learn from Halachos, Agados or Tosefta, only from the Gemara.

Question: It should have taught only "[if one transgressed] based on them", and automatically we would know that it is only [when he acted] based on them (the Great Sanhedrin's ruling)!

Answer: Perhaps one might have thought that the same applies if he mixed up (what the Sanhedrin permitted, and real Heter). Therefore, it taught Shogeg to teach which Shogeg, i.e. only based on them.

Question: This requires investigation, if the majority of the Tzibur transgressed in such a case, that they mixed up (what the Sanhedrin permitted, and real Heter), whether Beis Din is obligated.

Question: The Mishnah should have taught only "a Talmid who is not proper for Hora'ah"!

Suggestion: If so, this would connote that he is not Gamir (learned) and not Savir (able to learn one matter from another through analysis).

Rejection: We know from the Reisha [that such a Talmid is exempt] - "if an individual acted according to them, he is exempt"!

Answer: The Mishnah taught [also "one of them", i.e. of Beis Din] to teach that even if he is Gamir and Savir, he was Shogeg, for he erred about the Mitzvah to heed Divrei Chachamim, and he is liable. We do not say that he is Mezid.

Explanation: This is a Beraisa in Toras Kohanim. The text says "e.g. Shimon ben Azai." Therefore, it is better to ask from it than from our Mishnah, for it is difficult to say that Ben Azai would err about the Mitzvah to heed Divrei Chachamim.

Consequence: The text does not say "also my teaching", for also the Beraisa teaches "proper for Hora'ah." (There is no need at all to say that the same answer applies to Rava's teaching.)

Support: This is not in the text of an accurate Sefer [of the Gemara] from Eretz Yisrael.

Explanation: [The Tana returns to explain] that the Reisha is like R. Shimon, who exempts if they retracted.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Question: Everywhere, Mi'ut after Mi'ut includes, and here it excludes!

Citation (cont.) Answer: [It includes] only in a place where they are pairs;

Explanation: This is like in Sanhedrin (15a). In the Parshah (of Erchin and redemption of Hekdesh), it says "Kohen" 10 times. The first excludes [Yisraelim], and the second includes [even a Yisrael]. The third excludes, and the fourth includes, and [so on] forever.

Citation (Yerushalmi in Megilah) Question: If so, we should not need a Kohen at all!

Citation (cont.): The Torah did not mention a Kohen needlessly.

Explanation (Rashba in Nidah): When the exclusion comes to exclude one matter, like regarding Kohanim - [it obligates] a Kohen, and not a Yisrael - there, it comes to include;

However, when each one comes for a matter by itself, like here, and regarding "Zos Hi ha'Olah", there they [all] exclude.

Assertion: The text does not say "me'Am", for above we exclude from it a Mumar;

Also, the text does not say "Afilu Miktzaso", for even without this ("Am ha'Aretz"), an individual, and even many (up to half of Yisrael), it connotes that they bring, since we seek to bring [a source for] the majority.

Citation (Toras Kohanim): "Am ha'Aretz" - even the majority, and even all of [Yisrael].

Question #1: What is the source for this?!

Even if the Beraisa connotes so, in any case we see no support from the verse that they are liable in a case of Hora'ah.

Question #2: How does he learn from this Beraisa?

Suggestion: It is because the Beraisa does not first seek a source for a minority.

Rejection: We do not need [a source for a minority]. We learn from an individual. Just like he is liable, also the minority of the Tzibur.

Support: Toras Kohanim connotes like this, that two or three have the law of an individual.

Answer: It seems that the correct text is that of Seforim that say "why does [the Tana know better] a minority than a majority?"

Explanation: What is the difference between a minority and a majority? Why is a minority more obvious than a majority, according to what your said that they do not [bring] and Beis Din does not [bring], if your words [are correct]?

Rather, since, [the Tana] needed to learn a majority, this shows that a minority is obvious to him, for they bring also in a case of Hora'ah a Kisvah or Se'irah.