Alternative text: Some texts say "the Mishnah teaches that R. Yehudah says that 12 Shevatim who sinned bring 12 bulls."

Support: This is correct, for the Reisha teaches like this. Afterwards, it teaches seven Shevatim... [The Gemara] would not abandon the Reisha and cite the Seifa!

Question: What forced him to say so? Perhaps R. Meir holds that only an individual who did is liable, but two or three who did are exempt, and he argues with the Beraisa that says "still, I can say..."

In any case, R. Meir argues, for the Beraisa holds that that an individual who did through Hora'as Beis Din is liable, and R. Meir holds that he is exempt!

Answer: Since we do not find a Tana who distinguishes between one and two, he said this difficult explanation.

Implied question: We do not learn Torah law from Nevi'im or Kesuvim!

Answer: This is a mere Giluy Milsa (reveals a matter, i.e. who is included in the count).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The question is because these do not bring a Korban, like a [Kohen] Mashi'ach and Nasi. However, if there was a majority and they diminished, they were already obligated to bring a Korban (surely, they still bring it).

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Even when they were a majority and they diminished, now that they diminished, they are not obligated to bring a Korban, if we do not follow the time of the sin!

Distinction: There (one who was appointed to be Mashi'ach or Nasi after he sinned, at) both [times he] must bring a Korban!

Explanation #2: Rather, we ask about a minority that increased, for we could say that even R. Shimon would agree that they are exempt, like the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Question: It says below (4a) that Beis Din are liable only for a matter that the Tzedukim do not admit to;

Granted, Chelev on the intestines, which we learn from an inclusion (Chulin 49b), it is fine that Tzedukim do not admit to it;

However, Chelev that covers the stomach, and similarly blood, how can we answer? (The Torah explicitly forbids them. Tzedukim admit to them!)

Answer: According to the Tosefta in Horayos (1:7), this is fine. It teaches "[if they ruled to nullify part and] fulfill part, they are liable. What is the case? [They ruled that] there are [Isurim of] Chelev and blood in the Torah, but one is liable only for what is offered for [the Emurim of] a Shelamim.

Implied question: Also blood of a Chayah is forbidden! (Tzedukim agree that also Chulin blood is forbidden!)

Answer: Perhaps Tzedukim hold that also [a Chayah] is offered.

Implied question: Why did it teach such a case? This implies that [we ask] only because they knew in between that they erred about Chelev;

Even if they did not know, we can ask, like it says "because they are two kinds! Blood is equally forbidden in all (even in Chayos), but Chelev is not!"

Answer: It said so (that they knew in between) due to the other cases.

Implied question: Why didn't we resolve from [what Rava expounded] above (2a), "all [the Aveiros] must be due to one Shegagah"?

Answer: Here, since it depends on Beis Din, this is one Shegagah.

Question #1: What would they bring? The Korbanos are not the same! Would they bring the Korban for idolatry, and also for Chelev, or not?

Question #2: This requires investigation, whether he asks only if at the beginning they were the minority, and also at the end, but if they were the majority at the end, they do not join to the minority, so all would get Kaparah through a bull with that minority. (Keren Orah - this is relevant according to the opinion that individuals who relied on Beis Din are liable.) Or, perhaps there is no difference.

However, surely if at the beginning they were a majority, and at the end they are a minority, the minority does not join to the majority, since the majority were already obligated in a Korban.

Question: This requires investigation if we could have asked also according to the opinion that Beis Din brings, if the minority of the first Tzibur died, and [the mistake] became known only to those alive now;

Do we say that Beis Din are liable, for in any case they ruled improperly, or not?

Implied question: Why does it say that Beis Din died, and it does not say that another Beis Din ruled?

Answer: This is because [Par Helam Davar] is possible only through [a ruling of] the Great Sanhedrin (and we replace members only when they die).

Explanation: This excludes if half the Tzibur sinned, and also he sinned [after they retracted. Then], they are liable (Yad Binyamin, Avodah Berurah).

Implied question: Why does it say the plural (goats brought for idolatry)?

Answer: There are many goats [brought for a Chatas] - goats of Rosh Chodesh and final verdicts, which are many;

Since there it mentions goats, also here it mentions goats, even though here only one is brought, just like Par Helam Davar.

Question: There, regarding a Safek whether he ate [Chelev or permitted fat], it is a Safek to him and to everyone. Here, he has no Safek. (He knows that he relied on the Hora'ah. We have a Safek whether he must bring a Korban!) The same applies to Sumchus (who compares this to a man who offered his Korban Bein ha'Shemashos. Also that is a Safek to everyone! Merumei Sadeh answers that the Safek is not due to him, rather, to the Kohen, who offered it Bein ha'Shemashos.)

Answer: In both (the Mashal and the Nimshal, i.e. the case for a parable is brought), it is a Safek. (R. Eliezer holds that just like he brings Asham Taluy for that Safek, also for this Safek. Sumchus holds that just like he is exempt for that Safek, also for this Safek.)