EDIYOTH (Fol. b) MISHNA IV: Why, then, are the opinions of Shammai and Hillel stated at all, if without avail [when the law prevails in accordance with neither]? To teach to posterity that one must not insist upon one's statements, since the distinguished masters of the world did not persist in their views.
MISHNA V: And why is mention made of the opinion of a single person in connection with that of many, when the final decision is invariably with the majority? In order that when a court should happen to approve of some one's opinion it might base its decision thereon, for no court may annul the decision of another court, unless it be superior to the latter both in erudition and number. If, however, it be superior only in one respect, in either erudition or number, it cannot annul; it must be superior in both.
MISHNA VI: Said R. Juda: "If this be the case, why is mention made of the opinion of an individual in connection with that of the majority to no purpose? In order that if one say, 'So have I a tradition,' he should be told that this is in accordance with the opinion of this and this individual."