This is the language of the Tur, and in the Prishah I wrote that because of a person's craving and being drawn after money he warned with a doubled warning and wrote very very, and for this same reason the Tur also in Yoreh Deah siman 160 in the law of ribbis warned with this expression and wrote one must be very very careful in the prohibition of ribbis, and also at the beginning of siman 336 in Yoreh Deah he wrote regarding medicine, and these are his words, and he should be very very careful just as it is fitting to be careful in capital cases etc., and that is because of the severity of pikuach nefesh, and likewise he warned regarding the prohibition of arayos in Even HaEzer at the beginning of siman 21, and the father of them all is what the Sages of the Mishnah warned with this same expression when they said very very be lowly of spirit, because it is a person's nature to be drawn after arrogance.

So they proved in the Gemara in Kesubos, that from what is written do not take a bribe, for as to perverting judgment he has already been warned about that, as it is written do not pervert judgment, do not commit injustice in judgment, and the reason is explicit in the verse, as it says for the bribe blinds, and the Sages expounded that shochad is a notarikon of she'hu chad, meaning that the giver and the receiver become one body and it is impossible for him to guard himself from inclining after him, and since it is forbidden to accept it from one it is likewise forbidden to accept from both of them equally, and even from the two of them together, even though that reason does not apply there, and as I wrote in the Drishah, see there.

But without a demand he need not return it, since he accepted it only with the willingness of the giver and in order to vindicate the just, and it is not comparable to ribbis, regarding which it is written and your brother shall live with you, upon you to return it to him so that he may live by it, and see further in the Prishah.

In the Prishah I wrote that it means bribery of matters, like the one who removed a feather from the dayan or covered spittle that was before him, and so it is implied in the Gemara, however even actual bribery of words is likewise forbidden, such as to greet him first when it was not his way to greet him first, and everything of that kind, just as they forbade such things in the prohibition of ribbis as the Tur and the Mechaber wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 160, see there.

That is to say, even if he has not yet lent to him, since he has items to lend, then the borrowing that he borrowed from him does not carry upon it the status of a bribe, for he too is able to borrow from him whenever he wishes, and see further in the Prishah, that so it is proven from the language of the Gemara, and so we are compelled to explain the words of the Tur, and as I wrote in the Prishah, see there.

Even if at the time that he sent it to him his claim was already well known, that he would sue him with that claim. Tur.

And the Mahardach wrote, bayis 26, that this that it is only a matter of piety is where he did so to the dayan not in the presence of his fellow litigant, but in his presence it is certainly forbidden, for his claims will certainly be shut up, and this is easily understood, and see the Darchei Moshe who cited him.

We derive it from what is written, and the kohen who is greater than his brothers, make him great from that which belongs to his brothers.

That is to say, to exclude a case where they dedicated it for some specific purpose, in which case it is forbidden to divert it to another purpose, and as is written in Orach Chaim siman 153 and in Yoreh Deah siman 256, and see further in the Prishah.

This refers to what the Mechaber wrote, and they collect it from the beginning of the year or at its end.

Regarding the sons of Shmuel it is written that they did not walk in the ways of their father and they turned aside after profit, and see the Drishah for what I wrote on this.

Also one who takes payment to testify, his testimony is not testimony, and so it is explicitly in the Mishnah, and the Rama wrote it below in siman 34 se'if 18, see there.

That is to say, and then that judgment is a valid judgment, even though he took payment for other cases that he judged before this one and after it, and it is not comparable to one who transgresses a single sin, all of whose judgments and testimonies are void until he does teshuvah, for it is different here, since he did not transgress a negative commandment, but rather it is on account of a fine, and as the Rosh wrote, and see the Darchei Moshe and his glosses for more on this.

This is the correct reading, v'omer with a vav, and specifically when he stipulated with them at the outset is the law so, that he takes from them the entire wage of the work from which he is idled, and because it is stated only that there shall be no destitute among you, but if he did not stipulate and he judged and afterwards comes to take from them evident schar batalah, they need only give him the measure that a person would be willing to take in order to sit idle from that work from which he was idled, like the law of one who returns a lost object, which will be explained below in simanim 264 and 265, and regarding one who receives a business venture from his fellow with respect to ribbis the Tur and the Mechaber wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 177, and in the law of examining the blemishes of a firstborn animal in Yoreh Deah siman 312, and see what I wrote there further on this.

This is the correct reading, but if it is not evident, for example that he has no known work but rather he says etc., and so it is in the Tur.

Up to the word forbidden. See the Drishah where I wrote that from the teshuvah of the Rosh it is implied, though it is not so well proven, that even in such a case his judgments are void, and specifically in such a case where he said perhaps profit will chance upon me through the purchase of merchandise, which is a matter that does not depend on him and is not so readily available, but if he is a craftsman, even though he is not engaged in his craft at the time that the case comes before him, nevertheless, since the matter depends on him, even though it is an unseemly thing to take any payment lechatchilah, nevertheless his judgment is a valid judgment b'di'eved, and see the Drishah for what I wrote further on this.

See what I wrote in siman 3 on se'if 4, on what he wrote there that all those who sit on the beis din must be talmidei chachamim and fit.

The same applies where both of them are poor or both of them are wealthy, and the Maharshal wrote that it takes the case of a point in favor of a poor person as the stronger case, for even though the honor of his teacher and the honor of the wealthy person rest upon him, even so he should not stay silent.