We said that the whole point of mentioning opinions that we don’t accept, that we don’t have the majority for, is that if a court ruled like them in the future, then that ruling would have validity. They’d be switching the rabbi they hold like in the Mishnah. And that’s something they can do if they’re greater in wisdom and in number.
But here, this Mishnah will question that. Why do we mention the individual opinions, the singular opinions, together with the majority opinion, even in situations where that single opinion will always be relevant, no matter what, and where a court in the future never has the ability to hold like it? For example, if there’s a takkanah de-Rabbanan that was accepted by the entire Jewish people, then it can’t be overruled. It can’t be overturned later on if it’s agreed upon in such a strong way. That’s a decree that never can be overturned, even if there’s a majority opinion that disagrees with it earlier. So what’s the purpose in knowing that individual? The Tanna (Mishnaic sage) answers that Rabbi Yehudah gives his own reason why the Mishnah gives these other opinions that aren’t followed.
If a person eventually arises and says, “I have a tradition about how to follow this law. Why don’t we follow it?” he starts to question the Mishnah: “Why don’t we follow it?” We could say back to him, “Yeah, you heard that law, but it’s the opinion of the other rabbi, and we don’t follow him. We follow the majority opinion that disagrees with him, and therefore, that’s why the halacha (Jewish law) doesn’t fit with your tradition.”