Inference: Since Abaye sees fit to answer like this, it implies that he holds 'Mitzvos Einan Tzerichos Kavanah' ...

Source #1: Seeing as it refers to someone who carries it out into the R'shus ha'Rabim, in which having Kavanah is not applicable before he recites the B'rachah.

Source #2: Moreover, it speaks where he is on his way to ask an expert how to shake Lulav.

Question: At the end of 'Ra'uhu Beis-Din' (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 28b), when Rava said 'Mitzvos Einan Tzerichos Kavanah', Abaye plied him with questions?

Answer: It appears that he accepted his answers.

Clarification: According to what the Gemara says in Perek Eilu Devarim (Pesachim, Daf 72b) - that Rebbi Yossi only declares him Patur because of the shortage of time ...

Clarification (cont.): We will have to say that here too, he is hard-up for time - so that the Chatas should not come to Nosar.

Clarification: This is a Machlokes in Pesachim (Perek Eilu Devarim, Ibid.), where there is an opinion that declares Chayav someone who confused a spit-rod of Nosar with one of roasted meat and ate it.

Alternative Text: There are some texts however, that read 'One might have thought that it speaks about a Mitzvah that is incumbent upon him, but as regards one that is not, we might have thought, (he is) not (Patur)'.

Clarification: In other words - 'a Lulav', which he is obligated to take, since nobody else can take it for him; whereas a Chatas, another Kohen is able to eat it.

Clarification: Even if it turn out to be without blemish ...

Reason: Since it requires examination four days before it is Shechted.

Source: As the Gemara learns in Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Ibid., Daf 96a) from Pesach with a Gezeirah Shavah.

Inference: Whereas in a case of someone (or something) doesn't know how to ask, the Safek is Tahor even in the R'shus ha'Yachid ...

Source: As the Gemara Darshens in Sotah (Perek 'K'shem', Daf 28b).

Explanation #1: Prior to that, one does not give him a portion in the granary, but sends it to his house, provided he knows how to guard it be'Taharah.

Proof: As the Beraisa in 'Nos'in al ha'Anusah' (Yevamos, Daf 99b & 100a) states: 'There are ten people to whom one does not distribute T'rumah in the granary' - and it reckons 'Cheresh, Shoteh & Katan' ...

Proof (cont.): And the Seifa goes on to say that 'One sends it to their houses'.

Reason: One does not give it to them in the granary - because it is demeaning T'rumah, since nort everybody who sees him is aware that he knows is able to guard it be'Taharah ...

Reason (cont.): One does however, send it to those who are conversant with looking after it.

Proof (concl.): But once he knows how to Duchen and does so in public, everyone knows that he has grown two hairs - since a Katan may not Duchen, as we learned in the Mishnah in Megilah (Daf 24a) - Rashi.

Refutation: This is not the case however ...

Explanation #2: Because the Tana is speaking about a genuine Katan (a little child) ...

Proof: Similar to 'One who knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah'; and 'One who knows how to Shecht', and with all the other cases.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara in 'Nos'in al ha'Anusah' (Yevamos, Daf 99b & 100a) states 'One does not distribute T'rumah to a Katan in the granary' ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): It is speaking about one who does know how to Duchen. (cont. on following page).

Clarification: When the Mishnah rules in Perek ha'KOrei es ha'Megilah Omeid (Megilah, Daf 24a & 24b) that 'A Katan may not Duchen', that speaks when he is on his own, but together with grownups, he may ...

Support: As we find in the Mishnah in Erchin, in connection with 'The Shir in the Beis ha'Mikdash' (Perek Ein Ne'erachin, Daf 13b) 'They (the children) would stand between the feet of the Levi'im, and they were called "the young Levi'im" '.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 24b & 25a) 'If his beard was fully grown, he was eligible to become a Shatz, to go down before the Amud and to Duchen' ...

Answer #1: One must establish it by a single Katan, where no other Kohen is Duchening with him.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is speaking about Duchening permanently, or at a time when many Tefilos are said - such as on Yom Kipur, on fast-days and on Ma'amados.

. Answer #2 (extention.): And one needs to draw the same distinction with regard to 'Going down to the Amud'...

Introduction to Question: Since the Mishnah in 'ha'Korei s ha'Megilah Omeid (Daf 24a) permits a Katan to Lein but not to be Poreis al Sh'ma, to go down to the Amud or to Duchen ...

Implied Question: Implying that a Gadol may go down to the Amud, even though his beard is not fully grown ...

Answer: One is therefore forced to establish the Sugya in Chulin with regard to appointing a permanent Shatz, or to go down before the Amud on Yom Kipur, Ta'aniyos or Ma'amados.

Clarification: To Shecht expertly even though he is not conversant with the Dinim of Shechitah, one may eat from his Shechitah ...

Clarification (cont.): As Rav Huna explains - 'provided a grownup is standing over him, watching that he does not wait or press down on the knife (Rashi).

Inference: This implies that if he does not know how to Shecht expertly, one is not permitted to eat from his Shechitah, even though a Gadol watched him from beginning to en, to check that he does not wait or press down on the knife.

Clarification: There are people who are able to eat a k'Zayis of meat that has been cooked, but not of meat that has been roasted.

Reason: And the reason we assess by roasted meat is because the Korban Pesach had to be roasted.

Clarification: To eat the meat of Shelamim ...

Source: As the Gemara says in 'Arvei Pesachim' (Daf 109a) 'When the Beis-ha'Mikdash stands, there is no SImchah other than with meat', as the Pasuk writes (in Ki Savo) "And you shall Shecht Shelamim, eat them there and rejoice".

Implied Question: And although that Pasuk is referring, not to Yom-Tov, but to Har Gerizim and Har Eival ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the Torah mentions 'Simchah' with regard to Yom-Tov, when it writes (in Re'ei) "And you shall rejoice on your Chagim" (Rashi).

Question: Sometimes they cannot be eaten on all eight days - i.e. where the first an the eighth days of Sukos fall on Sunday (See Maharsha & Maharam), when it is impossible to eat (the Shelamim) for the full eight days ...

Question (cont.): With reference to the night after the seventh day, seeing as one must Shecht )Kprbanos) 'on the day that one brings', one may not Shecht them at nighttime.

Question (cont.): Nor can one Shecht on the seventh day, because 'Chagigah' and 'Simchah' do not override Shabbos.

Question (concl.): (There seems to be a printing error here. What Tosfos appears to be saying is) Shelamim that were Shechted on the sixth day can be eaten on the seventh, but not on the night of the eighth ...

Reason: Since Shelamim cannot be eaten for two days and two nights.

Question (concl.): It therefore transpires that on the night of Shemini Atzeres the Shelamim will not be eaten.

Answer: As Rav Papa says in Perek Eilu Devarim (Ibid., Daf 71a) in answer to a different question 'He causes rejoices on it with clean clothes and old wine., so too here.

Implied Question: Even though it is fit to perform a Mitzvah with it ...

Answer: The Isur Muktzah nevertheless applies to it, since it has not been made into a K'li ...

Support #1: As we find regarding the canes of the Lechem ha'Panim, about which the Beraisa says (in Menachos, Daf 87a) "u'Menakiyosav", 'these are the canes' ...

Support #1 (cont.): And the Mishnah there (Daf 96a) rules that 'the arrangement of the canes and their removal do not override Shabbos, and the Kohen therefore enters on Erev Shabbos ... ' ...

Support #1 (concl.): So we see that they are considered Muktzah despite the fact that they are fit for the Loaves.

Support #2: Also in Perek Arba'ah Achin (Yevamos, Daf 33b) in connection with 'A Zar who served, the Gemara says 'If he received the blood or took it (to the Mizbe'ach), it is merely a matter of Tiltul (Muktzah)?'

Refutation: However there it is less problematic, since it is referring to a Zar.