(R. Mana bar Tanchum): If 100 [judges] entered [to judge, and they erred, they are liable] only if all of them ruled.

Question: There (regarding the Beis Din to make a leap year), R. Ze'ira said "this is if all of them ruled from one reason." What is the law here?

(Mishnah): If an individual did b'Shogeg based on Beis Din's words...

Question: Why does it say "b'Shogeg"? Is there Mezid and Shogeg for an individual regarding a Hora'ah of Beis Din?!

(R. Imi citing Reish Lakish): [The Reisha of] our Mishnah [excludes] someone like Shimon Ben Azai sitting in front of [Beis Din. The Seifa teaches that he is Chayav Korban.]

Question: What is the case? If he knows the entire Torah, but does not know this matter [that they erred about], this is not Shimon Ben Azai!

And if he knows this matter, but does not know the entire Torah, he is Shimon Ben Azai for that matter (he is Mezid)!

Answer: The case is, he knows the Torah, and he knows this matter, but he errs to say that the Torah said "Achareihem" (follow Beis Din, even if they erred).

Question: If he erred to say that the Torah said "Achareihem", this is not Shimon Ben Azai!

(Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps if [Beis Din] tells you that right is left and left is right, one should heed them!

Rejection: "Laleches Yamin u'Smol" - [one heeds them] when they tell you that right is right and left is left. (If a Chacham knows that they erred, he must tell them his proofs that they erred and debate with them. If they debate with him and reject his proofs, he must accept their opinion. We explained this like RAMBAN, Hasagos on Sefer ha’Mitzvos Shoresh 1 DH u'Mefurash, and ALEI TAMAR.)

Question: How can we answer the question?

Answer. (R. Yosi citing R. Hila): [Really, he knew that he should not heed them, and even so he is liable. Here is different,] for everywhere [else], Shogeg is exempt [from lashes] and Mezid is liable, and here even Mezid is exempt [from lashes, for no one can warn him, but he is Chayav Korban, like Shogeg], for he relied on Beis Din. (We explained this like RIDVAZ and TOSFOS HA'ROSH, 2b.)

(Talmidim citing Shmuel): Our Mishnah discusses an individual who helps comprise a majority of the Tzibur [who sinned through Beis Din's Hora'ah], but every individual who sinned (if they are the minority of the Tzibur) brings a female lamb or goat (Chatas Yachid).

(R. Yochanan): Even an individual who did through Beis Din's Hora'ah is exempt.

Question: According to Shmuel, every individual gets Kaparah through two Chata'os (his own, and after the majority sin, we bring Par Helam Davar for all who sinned)!

Answer (R. Ze'ira citing Shmuel): An individual is suspended (waits until we see whether or not the majority will sin). If the majority eats [Chelev that Beis Din permitted], Beis Din brings. If the minority eat, [each] individual brings.

(Beraisa): Any Hora'ah for which Beis Din brings a bull, an individual does not bring a female lamb or goat.

Any Hora'ah for which Beis Din does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female lamb or goat.

Explanation #1: Shmuel explains the Beraisa to discuss the majority and minority. If most [of Yisrael] ate [Chelev due to Hora'as Beis Din], since Beis Din brings a bull, an individual does not bring a female lamb or goat;

If the minority ate, since Beis Din does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female lamb or goat.

Explanation #2: R. Yochanan explains the Beraisa to discuss [different kinds of] Hora'as Beis Din. If Beis Din ruled to uproot the entire [Mitzvah], since Beis Din does not bring a bull, an individual brings a female lamb or goat;

If they ruled to uproot part and fulfill part, since Beis Din brings a bull, an individual does not bring a female lamb or goat;

Shmuel explains [the Seifa of the above] Beraisa as follows. Still, I would say that if the minority of the Tzibur did [through Shegagas Ma'aseh], they are liable, since Beis Din does not bring a bull for them [when they sinned through Hora'ah], but if the majority of the Tzibur did [through Shegagas Ma'aseh], they are exempt, since Beis Din brings a bull for them!

It says "Am ha'Aretz" - even the majority [of the Tzibur], even all of it [brings for Shegagas Ma'aseh].

R. Yochanan explains the Beraisa as follows. Still, I would say that if the minority of the Tzibur did without Hora'ah, they are liable, since through Hora'ah, Beis Din does not bring a bull for them.

Shmuel says that [when the minority sinned through Shegagas Ma'aseh] they bring a female lamb or goat. R. Yochanan says, they do not bring a female lamb or goat.

Question: Shmuel learns Chiyuv from Chiyuv. This is fine. However, R. Yochanan learns Chiyuv from Patur!

Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa): "Oh Hoda Elav Chataso Asher Chata v'Hevi" - this excludes a Mumar to idolatry [for he would not have refrained, even had he known. If Beis Din permitted, an individual would not refrain. Why does Shmuel obligate?

Question (against Shmuel - Beraisa): "Nefesh Ki Secheta", "[Nefesh] Achas Secheta", "b'Asosah" - these are exclusions. One who relies on himself is liable. One who relies on Beis Din is exempt.

This argues with Shmuel, and he cannot resolve it.

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If Beis Din ruled, realized their mistake and retracted, and an individual 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).

Which case is Safek? 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 traveling?

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

(Gemara - R. Imi citing Reish Lakish): Our Mishnah (the Seifa of Mishnah #1, if Beis Din ruled... or a Chacham qualified to give Hora'ah knew that they erred... he is liable, for he did not rely on Beis Din) discusses someone like Shimon Ben Azai sitting in front of [Beis Din].

Question: What is the case?

If he removed them [from their opinion, i.e. convinced them to retract], their Hora'ah is Batel! If they convinced him, his Hora'ah is Batel!

Answer: The case is, this [side] persists in its defense [of the other opinion], and this [side] persists in its refutation;

Their Hora'ah is not a Hora'ah for him, for they did not convince him. It is a Hora'ah for others, since he did not convince them.

Question: Does our Mishnah not argue with R. Mana bar Tanchum? R. Mana bar Tanchum said that if 100 [judges] entered [to judge, and they erred, they are liable] only if all of them ruled!

Answer: He can explain that our Mishnah discusses when [the Chacham who disagrees] did not enter [with them].

Question: If he did not enter, this is Me'akev [the Hora'ah, for the entire Beis Din must rule]!

Answer: He can explain like Rebbi, for Rebbi says that only the Mufla (greatest) of the Beis Din is Me'akev.

Question: R. Mana bar Tanchum said that if 100 entered, [it is a Hora'ah] only if all of them ruled. Does the same apply to retraction (all must retract), or does it suffice that the majority of the group retracts?

Remark: Obviously, the majority suffices - however, is this the majority of those who ruled, or the majority of those who remain?

How is this? If 100 entered, and 10 died, if you require the majority of those who ruled, this is 51. If the majority of those who remain suffices, this is 46.