Question: These are not similar! There, there is one Korban for both Chelev and Nosar. However, here, the Korban for idolatry is not the same as for Chelev!

Answer: We must say that indeed, [Beis Din] know that the (possibilities for their mistaken Hora'ah) are only matters with the same Korban, like Chelev and blood, like Rashi explained.

Alternative text: Some texts say "two Kahal's are written."

Support: This is correct. We want to say that one Kahal, the entire verse is for the normal way of the verse;

One Kahal we expound [that it could have said] Kahal, [and it wrote] ha'Kahal. This is [why we say that there are] two Kahal's [to expound];

According to R. Meir, one Kahal is totally for the normal way of the verse. From it we learn also that we discuss Beis Din (i.e. they bring a Korban), and not the Tzibur;

One Kahal is for the Gezeirah Shavah.

Question #1: According to the text in Seforim, we want to say that both of them are for the Gezeirah Shavah. This is wrong.

Answer: Perhaps the Gemara wants to say that according to R. Shimon, the Kahal said above teaches Beis Din [that they bring a Korban] with the Tzibur [i.e. also the Tzibur brings];

Had the Torah not written that Kahal, one might have thought that Kahal written below is Tzibur and not Beis Din. According to R. Meir, it connotes oppositely.

Question #2: According to R. Shimon, [the Gemara] should say that four Kahal's are written, and one is extra to teach that action depends on the Kahal. It would not need to seek another verse!

Suggestion: We can ask that R. Meir should expound three Kahal's like R. Shimon, to expound that action depends on the Kahal!

Rejection: Since he has the Gezeirah Shavah that Kahal refers to Beis Din, he cannot learn from there that action depends on the Kahal;

Source: Above (3a, a Beraisa) said that "ha'Kahal v'Asu" teaches that Hora'ah depends on Beis Din, and action depends on the Kahal;

If so, one who learns from there holds that the Kahal said above refers to the Tzibur. R. Meir does not hold that the Tzibur brings!

Question: Now, even though the minority remained from the Tzibur [who did not sin], we are not concerned. All the more so we should not be concerned for Beis Din, since they (the sinners) are a majority!

Granted, if we would require all of them, this would be fine, that we require Beis Din with them.

Implied question: According to R. Yehudah, who said in the Beraisa above (5a) "even two Shevatim [who sinned, they bring two Parim]", he could have asked whether they bring only when two sinned, but [perhaps] if one Shevet sinned, no!

Answer: Rather, he asks about our Mishnah, which discusses seven Shevatim.

Question: If so, what is R. Shimon's reason to obligate only one bull?

Note: R. Shimon obligates two bulls! Perhaps Tosfos means that he obligates only one bull for the Shevatim, in addition to the bull for Beis Din.

We find that he argues with R. Yehudah only to obligate also a bull for Beis Din, but he agrees with R. Yehudah that one Shevet is called a Kahal! (Therefore, every Shevet that sinned should bring a bull.)

Question: Why does [Rav Acha bar Yakov] abandon the verse that Hash-m said to Yakov "Goy u'Kahal Goyim Yihyeh Mimecha"?