(Mishnah): If Beis Din (in this Masechta, this refers to the Great Sanhedrin) gave a (mistaken) Hora'ah (ruling) to transgress any Mitzvah of the Torah (punishable by Kares for one who was Mezid):

If an individual did b'Shogeg based on Beis Din's words, whether he transgressed with them, or after them, or even if Beis Din themselves did not transgress, he is exempt, because he relied on Beis Din.

If Beis Din ruled, and a member of the Beis Din or a Chacham qualified to give Hora'ah knew that Beis Din erred, and went and acted according to their words, whether he transgressed with them, after them, or without them, he is liable (brings a Korban), because he did not rely on Beis Din.

The general rule is, one who relies on himself is liable. One who relies on Beis Din is exempt.

(Gemara): "Nefesh Ki Secheta", "[Nefesh] Achas Secheta", "b'Asosah" [we expound as if it is adjacent to] "Secheta" - these are exclusions. One who relies on himself is liable. One who relies on Beis Din is exempt.

Question: Everywhere, you say that Mi'ut after Mi'ut includes, and here you say that Mi'ut after Mi'ut excludes!

Answer (R. Matanyah): Here is different, for Mi'ut after Mi'ut after Mi'ut is written.

Question #1 (R. Chagai, to Rabanan): (In Terumos 8:1, if a Kohen, his Eved Kena'ani or wife was eating Terumah, and found out that he is a Chalal (his mother was divorced), he was given or sold to a Yisrael, or she was widowed or divorced, R. Yehoshua exempts.) What is the source that one who ate with Reshus is exempt?

What is different about one who thought that it is Chulin, and it was found to be Terumah, that he is liable (pays principal and Chomesh), and one who considered himself to be a Kohen, and was found to be a Yisrael, who is exempt?

Answer (Rabanan): We learn from Hora'os of Beis Din.

Question #2 (R. Chagai): What is the difference between one who thought that it is a weekday, and it was found to be Shabbos, that he is Chayav [Chatas], and one who thought that [this animal] is Korban Pesach [and slaughtered it on Erev Pesach that was on Shabbos], and it was found to be Shelamim (which is not Docheh Shabbos), that he is exempt?

Answer (Rabanan): [The latter] had permission to slaughter (he was engaged in a Mitzvah).

Question #3 (R. Chagai): What is the difference between one who thought that this is [permitted] lard, and it was found to be Chelev, that he is Chayav [Chatas], and one who thought that it is permitted [due to Beis Din's Hora'ah], and it was found to be Asur, that he is exempt?

They did not say anything to him.

Answer (R. Chagai): I will tell you. "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso v'Hevi" (one who would have refrained, had he known what is here, he brings a Korban. One who thought that it is permitted would not have refrained.)

R. Yosi entered. [Rabanan] told him "this is difficult to us." He said, why didn't you answer from "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso v'Hevi"?

Rabanan: R. Chagai asked this, and he answered [from this verse].

Question: [Granted,] according to R. Yishmael, who says that this verse is not free to teach about one who is liable a Chatas or Asham Vadai, and Yom Kipur passed, this is fine. (We can say that the verse exempts one who relies on Beis Din);

[However, what is the source] according to R. Akiva, who says that this verse is free to teach about one who is liable a Chatas or Asham Vadai, and Yom Kipur passed...?

(Beraisa): What is the source that if one was liable a Chatas or Asham Vadai, and Yom Kipur passed, that he must bring it after Yom Kipur, but one who was liable Asham Taluy is exempt? It says "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso v'Hevi" - even after Yom Kipur.

Answer: He learns from "Nefesh Ki Secheta", "Achas Secheta", "b'Asosah Secheta" - these are exclusions. One who relies on himself is liable. One who relies on Beis Din is exempt;

[Beis Din] is liable only for something revealed to them and became covered to them. What is the reason? "V'Nelam Davar" - something that was revealed to them and became covered to them.

Question: [Granted,] according to R. Yishmael, we can expound so, for [he does not need both "v'Nelam"s to teach about Yedi'os of Tum'ah. Rather, he expounds "v'Nelam Mimenu" - implies that he knew. "V'Hu Yada" - this is a second Yedi'ah;

[However, what is the source] according to R. Akiva, who expounds "v'Nelam Mimenu... v'Nelam Mimenu" to teach that there was there was Yedi'ah at the beginning and at the end, and Helam in the middle?

Answer: It says "v'Nelam Davar" - something that was revealed to them and became covered to them. (He learns from Davar, and not from v'Nelam.)

They are liable only if they ruled to annul part [of a Mitzvah] and fulfill part.

Note: Also this we expound from "Davar" (PNEI MOSHE; HAGAHOS R. DINAR fixes the text to say so explicitly), like we expound below (1:3) "Davar", and not the entire matter. If R. Akiva learns from "Davar" something that was revealed and became covered, what is his source to annul part and fulfill part? Presumably he reads the Mem at the end of "v'Nelam" with "Davar" to get mi'Davar, like we say below (1:3).

(Shmuel): [They are liable only if they ruled] "it is permitted", but not if they ruled "one is exempt."

They are liable only if the Hora'ah was from [the Great Sanhedrin in] Lishkas ha'Gazis.

Source (R. Yochanan): This is due "Min ha'Makom ha'Hu Asher Yivchar Hash-m."