Question: On the contrary, why can we not say that it says later (with regard to Birchas ha'Mazon) "And you shall eat, be satisfied and bless Hash-m" - And just as there one may do so in any language (as the Gemara says later, on Daf 33a), so too, here?

Answer: It makes more sense to compare Birchas Kohanim to the B'rachos on Har G'rizim, since both of them are specified in the Torah ...

Answer (cont.): Because the B'rachos themselves are specified, inasmuch as the B'rachos constitute the exact opposite of the curses, which are specified "Arur ha'Ish ... ".

Answer (concl.): Whereas the wording of Birchas ha'Mazon is not specified in the Torah (at all).

Clarification: But according to the Chachamim, "Koh" does not imply that it is crucial, only "Kachah".

Clarification: Thus is not the wording of a Beraisa, merely a statement of the Gemara.

Support: And the wording in the Sifri is 'Rebbi Yonasan says 'I Mah le'Halan' ... '.

Question: How does he learn from there that Avodas Yachid too, requires Nesi'as Kapayim?

Question (cont.): Seeing as every days there is also Avodas Tzibur, in the form of the Tamid.

Answer: It therefore seems that according to all opinions, Avodas Yachid is precluded from Nesi'as Kapayim.

Answer (cont.): And Rebbi Yonasan too, only mentioned it in haste, because in fact, Nesi'as Kapayim every day is only performed during the Avodas Tamid,

Proof: As we learned in the Mishnah in Tamid (Daf 32b), where we learned ...

Proof (cont.): That, after they placed the Evarim on the ramp and salted them, they descended and made their way to the Lishkas ha'Gazis ...

Proof (concl.): Where the Memuneh announced 'Recite one B'rachah', which they did. Then he announced 'Read the Aseres ha'Dibros ... the Sh'ma ... Vehayah im Shamo'a ... Vayomer and bless the people with three B'rachos (Birchas Kohanim) ... Emes ve'Yatziv, The Avodah (Retzei) and Birchas Kohanim (Sim Shalom)'.

Conclusion: And the same applies to the Musaf and to the Tamid shel bein ha'Arbayim.

Clarification: This refers to the previous Gemara - 'It compares his sons to him ... Perhaps they are only compared with regard to Sheirus (the Avodah)?'

Clarification (cont.): Therefore the Gemara now concludes that since they are compared with regard to Sheirus, they are also compared with regard to B'rachah, since B'rachah is compared to Sheirus.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Hillel explains in the Sifri that Kinuy refers to 'Keil, 'Elokim' and ' Tzevakos'.

Refutation: This Is not logical however, as how is it possible to change the Pasuk to read "Yevarech'cha Elokim" instead of the four-letter Name of Hash-m.

Explanation #2: 'Be'Kinuy' must therefore refer to pronouncing it (the four-letter Name of Hash-m) 'Alef Daled', the way we pronounce it.

Clarification: The Sifri states - 'Wherever I reveal Myself, there shall you mention My Name'.

Gemara's Question: Hence the Gemara asks here 'Do you really think that it is "everywhere" '? - that wherever I command that you mention My Name - even outside Yerushalayim, that you shall bless?

Gemara's Question (cont.): Because "Wherever I mention My Name I will come to you" implies that I personally will reveal My Shechinah there?

Gemara's Answer: The Pasuk must therefore be inverted - "Wherever I come to you (i.e. wherever I reveal Myself) there I command you to mention My Unique Name, with reference to the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Gemara's Answer (cont.): That is why the Sifri states 'Wherever I am revealed, there shall you mention My Name'.

Halachah #1: It appears that this is the reason that the Kohanim stopped blessing with the Name of Hash-m following the death of Shimon ha'Tzadik, as the Gemara says in Perek Taraf be'Kalpi (Yoma, Daf 39b) - because (from then on) they no longer merited the revelation of the Shechinah,

Halachah #2: The Ri explains that a Kohen who recites Birchas Kohanim sitting down has not fulfilled the Mitzvah ...

Reason: Since it is compared to Sheirus (serving in the Beis-ha'Mikdash) ...

Source: And with regard to Sheirus, the Gemara says in the second Perek of Zevachim (Daf 23b) that sitting invalidates the Avodah.

Halachah #2 (concl.): Consequently, here too, the Kohen will need to repeat Birchas Kohanim standing up.

Question: The Ri asks why we cannot learn it from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "B'rachah" "B'rachah" from Har Gerizim, in that just as there they called called out in a loud voice, so too, here?

Answer: It may well be that we only need the current Limud according to Rebbi Yehudah, who does not learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah, only from "Koh".

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Perek Ein Omdin citing Rav Chisda, says that the Chazan should be a Yisrael.

Calling the Kohanim #1: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that 'If there is one Kohen, one announces 'Kohen!'; if there are two, 'Kohanim!'

Calling the Kohanim #2: Whereas according to Rav Chisda, even if there is only one Kohen, one announces 'Kohanim!' - since ''Kohanim' merely refers to the Tribe.

Yerushalmi #1: In Maseches Nazir Perek Kohen Gadol asks whether a Kohen may render himself Tamei in order to Duchen? Gevila (a Chacham) pointed to Rav Aba bar Kohen in front of Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rav Acha that he may.

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): Rav Acha heard about it and denied having said it.

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): The Gemara asks whether he changed his mind

Yerushalmi (cont.): Or perhaps what he heard was what Rebbi Yehudah bar Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Elazar said - that 'Any Kohen who is standing in Shul and does not Duchen transgresses an Asei'. And he thought that The Asei overrides the Lo Sa'aseh (erroneously. because Tum'as Kohen incorporates an Asei as well), and that is why Rav Acha denied having said that, and he concluded ...

Yerushalmi #1 (cont.): 'Bring him (Gevila) here and I will give him Malkos'.

Yerushalmi #2: Rebbi Avahu was sitting and teaching in the Shul in Caesaria in which a dead person was lying. The time came to Duchen, but his Talmidim who were Kohanim did not ask him whether they may remain there to in order to Duchen. However when the time came to eat, they asked him whether were allowed to eat there in spite of the corpse.

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): He said to them 'With regard to Duchening you did not ask me, but when it came to eating you did!'

Yerushalmi #2 (cont.): When they heard that, all his Talmidim slipped out and went to eat at home.

Halachah: The same will apply if he establishes himself by receiving Matnos Kehunah ...

Proof: As the Gemara says in Perek ha'Zero'a (Chulin, Daf 133a), where Abaye said 'Initially, I used to Chap Matanos ... ' only later he did not take them at all, except on Erev Yom Kipur, when he used to take them to establish himself as a Kohen.

Conclusion: And in answer to the Kashya why he did not Duchen, the Gemara replies that he did not manage to go up to Duchen.

Clarification: At the end of Maseches Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 35a) the Gemara explains that it is specifically those who are in the fields who are consider Oneis, but not those who remain at home.

Clarification: It appears that the She'eilah is confined to where one is not an Oneis

Source: Because if one is, it is obvious, since why should this be worse than 'the people in the fields'?

Question: If they are not an Oneis, why are they any better than people who stand behind the Kohanim without a wall in between?

Answer: Because people who stand behind the Kohanim demonstrate that the B'rachah is not meaningful in their eyes ...

Source: Since the Torah says "Say to them" - 'Face to face', and they are standing with their faces towards the backs of the necks.

Answer (cont.): Whereas where there is a separation of a Mechitzah, seeing as one is not standing behind the Kohanim, it does not matter, since the Pasuk is not particular about it.

The Same Applies to Tefilah: From the Gemara at the end of Maseches Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 35a) it is implied that the same ruling applies to Tefilah.

Support: And this is also implied in Perek Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim, Daf 85b) where the Mishnah rules that, if part of a limb leaves the Azarah, then, whatever is on the threshold and within, is considered inside, and whatever is on the threshold and without, outside - on which Rav commented that 'the same applies to Tefilah'.

Support (cont.): And he argues with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who maintains that 'Even a metal Mechitzah ... '.

Support (concl.): And since the Gemara extrapolates S'tam from the words of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, we see that the Halachah is like him ... (cont. on the following page).