"And he received it from me from the elders and from Pinchas. The prince and judge Yitzchak Abarbanel, in his introduction to the Avot tractate, strongly opposed our master’s words here, as the elders, according to the Seder Olam, lived many years after Yehoshua—14 years longer—and from their era to Shmuel’s, over 400 years. However, it is clear that the 'elders' mentioned by our master here are those who lived after Yehoshua, in all the subsequent generations, and not those who remained since Moshe’s time (and the Meiri wrote similarly in the introduction to the Avot tractate, that the elders mentioned there were not those from Moshe’s time, but those who lived in his era and afterward, as it is said: 'And Israel served Hashem all the days of Yehoshua and all the days of the elders who lived many years...', and their number is unknown). Pinchas himself lived many years, even until the time of the prophets, as he realized, for we find him in the story of the concubine at Gibeah. These elders belonged to the court of Pinchas, who was the head of the court, as we find in the sages’ tradition regarding the case of Yiftach's daughter, who said, 'I will go to the mountains.' See Midrash Rabbah, Bereshit 60, which asks, 'But wasn't Pinchas there?' and Pinchas responded, 'I am not required...', see this well, and note that our master omitted all the judges, as Pinchas was the head of the court, and the tradition came from him and his court, as mentioned."

"And David received from Shmuel. The aforementioned prince also questioned this, as David is not counted among the prophets, and the tradition was not transmitted to kings. This does not mean that David was not counted among the prophets (and what our master wrote in the Sefer HaMoreh, Part 2, Chapter 45, that David was not a prophet, does not contradict this, as the meaning in the Moreh is that he was not sent to prophesy, and the explanation is extensive). In the Seder Olam we have, David is counted among the prophets, as is the version of our master, Hananel, in Megillah 14, which states that Shmuel, David, and Ahijah were prophets. (Even if he were not counted among the prophets and tradition had not been transmitted to kings, David was head of the court, and the succession of tradition occurred through the Sanhedrin). Our master, by not counting Solomon among those who received the tradition, followed Rashi's version, which included Solomon, because Solomon's prophecy was not recorded. Even though it is said that Solomon was a prophet (see Sotah 48b in two versions of the Talmud), he was not counted because his prophecy was not written. See also the explanation of the Gra, who argues that Solomon might not have been counted among the recipients of tradition, as when David died, he was only 12 years old and not yet fit to receive the tradition from David."

"And Ahijah the Shilonite, who was a descendant of the Egyptians, received from David and the court. However, in an objection, the critic (Abarbanel) argues that this is incorrect, as Ahijah the Shilonite was a member of David's court. And see where Raavad’s intention is clarified, as, being an extremely old man, it would not be correct to say he received from David. Examine what is said about this. In Mishneh Torah Part 2, Rambam also adopts this interpretation, that until the generation of Yeravam, when Ahijah received prophecy, he was not among the recipients of the tradition, as observed. Indeed, given that it is written that Ahijah saw Amram, and Amram saw Yaakov, it stands to reason that Ahijah would have been around 60 years old when the Torah was received. See what Maharal of Elphandri writes on this, holding that this is the intent of the objection, though the details are unclear. What appears clear from Raavad’s intent is that we find among our earlier masters that they possessed the book of the order of the Torah recipients, as well as the order of the Tannaim and Amoraim, and used it, as Rav Sherira Gaon did in his letter, and also in the Halachot Gedolot in laws on debts and mourning, and also in the Ha-Kaneh book, and see Tosfot in Sanhedrin 29b, Shevuot 41a, and Avodah Zarah 35a, and other places, and also in the Machzor Vitri. For this reason, the words of the prince Abarbanel are surprising, as he chose an entire methodology for the transmission order, though it does not depend on logic, but rather on tradition, as stated in the book of the order of Torah recipients, where it is written that the order is: from Shmuel to Gad (and in some places from Shmuel to Natan and from Natan to Gad), from Gad to Shimei, from Yehoyada to Ahijah the Shilonite, and from Ahijah to Elijah (in some versions, from Gad to Ahijah and from Ahijah to Elijah). Clearly, this version was accepted by Raavad, hence he commented on our master’s words, saying that Ahijah received from David and his court, which is incorrect, as he received from the prophets who preceded him, merely being part of David’s court. This is the basis of his objection. However, according to our master’s intent and method, as mentioned above, only Yehoshua, a disciple of Moshe, was entrusted with the tradition so that he alone could pass it to others. After Yehoshua, the tradition continued to be transmitted only by the head of the court and his court, collectively. This is the process of transmission, and thus, although Ahijah the Shilonite received from Natan and Gad, as they lacked a court during David’s time, and at that time, David and his court were in power, there were no divided courts, so our master did not include in the transmission order anyone other than those who received from David and his court, who received from Shmuel and his court. What Ahijah received from others is not counted in the transmission order, as they did not have the authority to transmit it alone to Ahijah without the court. Perhaps this is why our master skipped from Elijah and his court to Yehoyada and his court, even though the order of transmission in the book includes Mikhiyahu, Obadiah, Jonah, and Eliezer (and regarding what our master said about Yehoyada, the prince Abarbanel raised numerous objections, as Yehoyada was not a prophet, and high priests were not counted among the heads of transmission, and he did not see Yehoyada counted among the recipients of tradition in any versions, as the sages said that when a prophet’s name is mentioned along with his father's name, it is certain that he is a prophet, son of a prophet, as in the case of Zechariah, son of Yehoyada, the priest, mentioned in Chronicles. That he is not counted among the prophets is common, as many were not counted, and the details are extensive. Rabbi Meiri wrote that among them are Yehoyada and his colleagues, who prophesied in the days of Yoash, and among them Zechariah, etc., and see also Shekalim 5:6, a midrash discussing Yehoyada, the high priest, who prophesied concerning a sin and fault, and received offerings, etc. This version is mentioned regarding the recipients of tradition)."