Question: If you will say that, on the contrary, if stealing and decrees are two different things than there is no question of "three versus two." This would be because the judges of stealing would be three, while the judges who made decrees were two.

Answer (#1): Rebbi answers that it is illogical that one judge had two different special positions of authority. There were so many important (and scholarly) people in Yerushalayim that they certainly could afford to appoint one individual per position (and not have one person holding two positions).

Proof: Additionaly, if one person were to have two positions, it would have been sensible to appoint Chanan ha'Mitzri to two positions, as he was greater than Chanan ben Avishalom, as explained by Rabeinu Tam. [Therefore, the fact that he is not listed as having two positions proves that they did not appoint one person to more than one special position.]

Implied Question: [What does the Gemara mean when it answers "it stated the ones who were important?"] Do not say that it means that the Mishnah only listed the judges who were important. It is apparent from the Beraisa that Chanan ha'Mitzri was more important than Chanan ben Avishalom, as Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first in the Beraisa (and he is not listed in our Mishnah).

Answer (#1): Rather, this is what it means. The one's whose laws are discussed later by the Mishnah, Chanan who said two things and Admon who said seven things, are listed in the Mishnah. The one whose laws are not discussed, as he did not enact any laws (that were going to be discussed), it did not list.

Answer (#2): It appears to me that the Mishnah is indeed listing the most important of the judges.

Despite the fact that Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first by the Beraisa, we find a similar listing in the (Beraisa that states that a) story that happened with "Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Yehoshua, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, and Rebbi Akiva." The listing is in this order even though Rebbi Akiva was a more important Tana than Rebbi Eliezer ben Azaryah, as Rebbi Akiva was the head of the scholars.

Everywhere it is said (i.e. Pesachim 50a), "like Rebbi Akiva and his friends." [Rebbi Akiva is clearly given the most prominence in this phrase.]

At the end of the first Perek of Yevamos (16a), regarding the story of Rebbi Dosa ben Herkinus where Rebbi Yehoshua told them, "I will go." Who went after him? Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Who went after him? Rebbi Akiva.

When they went in to visit Rebbi Dosa, Rebbi Dosa said to Rebbi Yehoshua, "Does Azaryah our friend indeed have a son?" This implies that he did not even know that Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah existed! To Rebbi Akiva, however, he said "So you are the one whose name goes from one end of the world to the other!" Even so, we see that the Beraisa earlier listed Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah first before Rebbi Akiva. The reason why is because he was from a family of prominent lineage, much more so than Rebbi Akiva, as he was a tenth generation descendant from Ezra (ha'Sofer). Additionally, Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed Nasi (giving him more prominence).

Here too, when Chanan ha'Mitzri is listed first in the Beraisa it was not because he was more important, but rather because he was from a more prominent family than Chanan ben Avishalom.

Implied Question: Rebbi asked, we should still ask ourselves why we do not give the same answer of Rabeinu Tam.

Answer (#1): This is not a question. If these judges were only listed because they said laws discussed in the Mishnah, it should have stated "two judges of decrees that were in Yerushalayim." Being that it said "(two judges of decrees) were in Yerushalayim," this implies that there were only two such judges in Yerushalayim.

Answer (#2): Additionally, the Beraisa states close by that Rebbi Nasan says that Nachum ha'Madi was also one of the judges of decrees in Yerushalayim.

He must not be taking the Beraisa into account, as if he would be this would mean that Rebbi Nasan holds there were four such judges in Yerushalayim. However, we understand that when the Beraisa says three it means Admon, Chanan, and Nachum ha'Madi, according to Rebbi Nasan (perhaps he even had such a text in the Beraisa).

It must certainly have listed thee most important people first. This would be why Rebbi Nasan said that even Nachum ha'Madi was one of the people who issued decrees, meaning that he was important like them.

Implied Question: The Gemara here does not ask, "How could he have done this? Doesn't the Pasuk say, "and do not take bribes (Shemos 23:8)?" This is despite the fact that the Gemara asked a similar question on Karna.

Answer (#1): Rabeinu Tam answers that this is because it is only prohibited to take bribes from people involved in a case (that comes before Beis Din). Here they were simply taking money from the general public.

Answer (#2): Rebbi explains that here they were not taking wages. They were always sitting in judgement and not working, and therefore did not have anyway to make money. It was therefore incumbent upon the public to support them.

However, Karna was only sitting as a judge temporarily, and he therefore should not have taken payment for judging.

For this same reason the Gemara later (106a) is understandable. The Gemara later states that the people who taught the laws of Shechitah and Kemitzah would take their wages from the general funds of the Beis Hamikdash. This is despite the fact that receiving money in order to teach Torah is forbidden, as stated in Nedarim (37a).

Implied Question: [How does the Gemara's answer, telling us how even sages and the righteous are adversely affected by bribery, address the question of why the Beraisa applied this command of not taking bribes to evildoers and fools who do not pass judgement?] This is a Kal v'Chomer to the evildoers who have already taken bribery once before.

The first time that the judge takes a bribe he can still be called a complete Tzadik (if he is one), as he has not yet taken the bribe. Certainly a fool who is taking a bribe a second time, that he is already called a fool because of the first time he took a bribe.

Answer (#2): The Rashbam explains that this Kal v'Chomer for fools is not the actual teaching of the Beraisa, but is derived from the fact that the Beraisa uses the terminology of "sages" and "righteous." This implies that this is certainly so for fools.

This is why when the Gemara asks, "And are they people who do judgement?" It answers, "this is what it means to say." The Gemara is telling us we should not deduce its content from the literal meaning of the Beraisa. [The Maharsha explains that the Rashbam means that the Beraisa seems to be implying something, and is obviously not coming to tell us that certainly evildoers and fools are blinded by bribes. It must be that it's main message is something that can be derived from its statement, not the statement itself.]

A similar style is evident in Bava Metzia (114b). The Beraisa there quotes the Pasuk "if he is a poor person, do not sleep with his collateral" (Devarim 24:12). The Gemara asks, this must imply that if he is a rich person you could! The Gemara answers this is what the Beraisa means to say etc.

Note: The Pnei Yehoshua explains that the Rashbam understood that the entire Beraisa was just a quote of the Pasuk. This, like our Beraisa, indicates that a Beraisa may something obvious that is merely meant to indicate a certain teaching, although it would not say it outright. However, it should be noted that many commentaries understand that the statement "This must imply that if he is a rich person you could!" is actually part of the Beraisa. This means that the Rashbam's proof would not apply.

Implied Question: Here the Gemara implies that the judges who would need money would be susceptible to bribery. This is apparent from the Gemara's conclusion that if a judge needs to borrow things from people he shouldn't be a judge, and from the previous statements regarding bribery.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin (7b) quotes this teaching of Rav Nachman bar Kohen regarding a judge who is not an expert, and he needs to ask advice for rulings and judgements.

The Gemara there concludes with this teaching of Rav Nachman bar Kohen: What does the Pasuk mean when it says "a King with judgement will make the land stand (etc.)?"

Afterwards, the Gemara relates that the house of the Nasi appointed a judge who was not learned. The rest of the entire Gemara there discusses judges who are not appropriate for their position because they are not learned.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that this Pasuk indeed implies both that a judge should not need money and that he should not be lacking in Torah wisdom.

Refutation of Possible Explanation: This is not talking about the same category of "friend" and "enemy" that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan discuss regarding witnesses (who are friends or enemies of one of the parties involved in a judgement).

Regarding a judge, even the Rabbanan agree that he is unfit (if he is a "friend" or "enemy"), as the Gemara concludes in Sanhedrin (29a).

Proof: If they would be talking about the same categories (of friends and enemies), the Gemara here should have brought the Pesukim discussed there in Sanhedrin (29a).

New Explanation: It must be that there the Gemara is discussing a "friend" as meaning someone who participates in his friend's wedding celebrations, and an "enemy" is someone who he has not spoken with (due to their bad relationship) for three days.

However, our Gemara is referring to someone who is a "friend," defined as someone in the following case (quoted in our Gemara regarding Ameimar). A judge had a feather fly on to his head, and a person came and took it off. [The person who took the feather off is now considered a friend of the judge, though this was the extent of their relationship.] This is clearly only a stringency, that they (judges) kept to be stringent on themselves, like we find in many cases that that they were stringent regarding their behavior. However, this did not render them unfit to judge by the letter of the law. [This therefore does not have much to do with the parameters of "friend" and "enemy" regarding witnesses.]

Observation: There is no need to say a difficult explanation, like that given by Rashi (that Elisha was not a Kohen and therefore did not eat Bikurim).

Opinion: This is the explanation (of the Gemara). Was Elisha able to eat Bikurim? Wasn't he in Shomron at the time, and Bikurim cannot be eaten outside of the walls of Yerushalayim, as is apparent in Makos (17a) and Chulin (68b)?

Proof: The following is said in Eliyahu Zuta (and supports Tosfos' explanation that the problem was the place, not that Elisha was not a Kohen). Torah scholars are an atonement for Bnei Yisrael wherever they live, as the Pasuk states "you will bring an offering of Bikurim," (Vayikra 2:14) and it says, "and a man came from Ba'al Shalishah" (Melachim Beis, 4:42).

"Did Elisha eat Bikurim there? There was not a Beis Hamikdash, a Mizbe'ach, nor a Kohen Gadol there (in Shomron). Only Elisha and his students who were sitting before him (were there). From here they said (that whoever brings gifts to a Talmid Chacham) etc."