Siman 128

It is a positive commandment for the kohanim to bless Israel, as it is said: "So shall you bless the children of Israel." This obligation is perpetual even in this time. The Rambam, at the beginning of the laws of prayer, counted it in the enumeration of the commandments; see there. In the time of the Temple, they would bless after the burning of the incense and after the burning of the limbs of the daily offering, as the Rambam wrote in the sixth chapter of the laws of the daily offerings, and as it is taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Tamid. (And see Tosafot, Berakhot 11b, beginning with the words "and the blessing of the kohanim," and it requires further study. It appears to me that it is a printing error. Examine it closely and you will find it easily.) This matter is explained in the Torah regarding the eighth day of the inauguration, as it is written: "And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down from performing the sin offering..." That is to say: that with this the service was completed. Consequently, after the completion of all the performance of the sacrifice is the time for the blessing of the kohanim. This is explicitly stated in the Torat Kohanim there, and so Rashi wrote in Sotah (38b, beginning with the word "and he stepped down").

And this is in the Mikdash and in the provinces, and likewise in this time at the conclusion of the prayer, which is in place of the sacrifice. And the prayer is concluded at "Shomea Tefillah," for there is the conclusion of the requests, and therefore we say "Retzei be'amcha Yisrael u'vitfilatam." And therefore the obligation to move their feet to the place of the duchan is at "Retzei," as will be explained. And this fact that they established it to bless before "Sim Shalom" is because Birkat Kohanim concludes with "Shalom." And also there is the conclusion of the prayer, therefore they placed it adjacent to there. And they also must stand on the duchan until after the blessing "Hamivarech et amo Yisrael bashalom," so that the entire prayer is finished in its completeness. And afterward they descend in the manner that Aharon descended at the conclusion of the service (so it appears in my humble opinion regarding these reasons).

From where do we know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the birkat kohanim? As it is said: "And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them" (Sotah ibid.). For the verse made the matter dependent upon them, that this blessing should be the placing of His name upon His people, and He did not perform it for the sake of Israel, but rather for the sake of the Omnipresent (Rashi). And regarding the explanation of "and I will bless them," the Tannaim disagreed in Chullin (49a): Rabbi Ishmael says: We have learned of the blessing for Israel from the mouth of the kohanim; for the kohanim themselves—we have not learned. When it says "and I will bless them," it means: the kohanim bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, blesses the kohanim. Rabbi Akiva says: We have learned of the blessing for Israel from the mouth of the kohanim; from the mouth of the Almighty we have not learned. When it says "and I will bless them," it means: the kohanim bless Israel, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, agrees with them. And the blessing for the kohanim Rabbi Akiva derives from "And I will bless those who bless you." And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in Sotah ibid.: Every kohen who blesses is blessed, and one who does not bless is not blessed, as it is said: "And I will bless those who bless you," see there. And this is according to Rabbi Akiva. And a kohen who omitted a single word has not fulfilled the mitzvah and his blessing is in vain, for it is written "Thus shall you bless"—as a requirement.

And any kohen who does not ascend to the dukan, if he does not possess one of the hindering factors that will be explained before us – transgresses three positive commandments: "So shall you bless," "Saying to them," and "And they shall place My name" (ibid.). And it is not precisely so, as the Rambam wrote at the end of the Laws of Prayer, and this is his wording: Even though he has nullified one positive commandment – it is as if he transgresses three positive commandments. See there. And so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, see there. And know that there is one who wrote that there is also a positive commandment upon the Israelite to be blessed (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of Charedim). And it is not precisely so, for where have we found this positive commandment? Rather, it is to say: there is an obligation upon him to be blessed by kohanim, and if he is not concerned for this, he is like one who kicks at the blessings of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and is worthy of punishment.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in Even HaEzer siman 3 that one who comes and says, "I am a kohen," is trusted to lift his hands; see there. And they raised an objection against him: for even the one who is lenient in this matter was only lenient regarding the matter of reading first in the Torah, which was only instituted for the sake of the ways of peace. However, regarding the lifting of hands, where there is a positive commandment prohibited to an Israelite who lifts his hands—as it is stated in Ketubot (24a) for it is written: "So shall you bless"—you and not a stranger; and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment is a positive commandment—certainly he is not trusted regarding himself (Magen Avraham, beginning of the siman). However, we have already explained in Even HaEzer there, section 5, that his words are correct, for according to Torah law every person is trusted regarding his own status even in a matter where there is a presumption of prohibition, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 127. And he should have been trusted even regarding Torah-mandated terumah, except that because from terumah they elevate to lineage, and regarding the lineage of the priesthood they established many stringencies, therefore even regarding rabbinic terumah they did not trust him. And this was in the time of the Shas when there was still rabbinic terumah—they were concerned for lineage. This is not the case now, as there is no concern in this. And we have further elaborated there with the help of Heaven.

It is stated in Shabbat (118b): Rabbi Yosei said: In all my days, I never transgressed the words of my colleagues. I know of myself that I am not a kohen, yet if my colleagues said to me, "Ascend to the dukhan" – I would ascend. The Tosafot wrote: Rabbi Yosei did not know what prohibition there is for a zar who ascends to the dukhan, if not for the sake of a blessing in vain, for the Torah told the kohanim to bless Israel. Thus far their words. Many have wondered, for behold there is a positive commandment prohibition as has been explained. In its simple sense, the intention is this: for behold, certainly Rabbi Yosei would not recite the blessing, for why would he do so to make a blessing in vain for the sake of the will of his colleagues? And if so, the ascent alone without speaking, what prohibition is there in this? Is it then forbidden to stand among the kohanim? (Maharsha. And see Magen Avraham subsection 1, who also explained the words of the Gemara in this way. And I do not know, for if so, why was it not comfortable for him to explain the Tosafot in this way as well? And the words of the Taz subsection 2, who wrote that upon the zar there is no obligation, but also no prohibition in the matter, and so wrote the Magen Avraham there. And it is very wonderous: for if so, why is it necessary to ask in Ketubot there if one may elevate from the raising of the hands to lineage, since there is no proof of priesthood from this? And besides this, it explicitly does not imply so. And what is clarified is like the words of the Maharsha. And what the Magen Avraham wrote to resolve that of Ketubot is forced.)

Our teacher, the Rema, explained to distinguish between when there are other kohanim and when he is alone. Many wondered at him: for what distinction is there in this? It appears to me that his words are clear, and this is the explanation: for it was not pleasing to him to explain that Rabbi Yosei said nothing. Rather, certainly he said "May He bless you" with the kohanim, but a berakhah he certainly did not recite. If so, the distinction is simple: for when he is alone and stands and blesses Israel—certainly there is a violation of a positive commandment even without a berakhah, for the berakhot are not indispensable. But when there are other kohanim and they are the ones blessing, if so, what do we care if he reads the verses? And what is he doing in this? Behold, he does not intend to bless Israel but rather he says the verses with them, and what of it? But when he is alone and stands on the dukhan, and the people gather around him and receive his blessings—certainly he violates a positive commandment. (And see Bach. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The nesiat kapayim is not performed with fewer than ten. The kohanim are included in the count, because they too are included in the blessing (Taz). And one should not ask: Why is this similar to a davar shebikdusha, is it not merely a blessing like all other blessings? For it is not so, since it is written "And I will bless them" – if so, it requires the indwelling of the Shekhinah, and the Shekhinah does not dwell among fewer than ten. Therefore, it is similar to a davar shebikdusha, which is only performed with ten for this reason. And it has already been explained that any kohen who does not ascend to the dukhan violates a positive commandment if there is nothing among the matters that prevent him from blessing. And there is a distinction in this: for if the matter that prevents him prevents him entirely – he is forbidden to bless. But if the matter prevents him only by exempting him from blessing, and if he wishes he may bless, as the details will be explained in this siman – it only exempts him from the positive commandment, but there is no prohibition in this (Taz subsection 3). Nevertheless, it is proper that he leave the beit knesset (ibid.).

There are times when even if he lacks any of the factors that disqualify or exempt him, he nevertheless does not violate a positive commandment. For example, if he was not in the beit knesset when the sheliach tzibbur called "Kohanim," or if he did not uproot his feet during "Retzei" and they did not tell him to ascend or to wash his hands. Similarly, if he ascended once on that day, he does not violate it again, even if they told him "ascend." All the details of these laws will be explained before us. The Tur wrote in the name of the Ri"f that even if he is a lone kohen, he does not violate it, as it is written: "Say to them." The Tur disagrees with him, for it refers to Aaron and his sons, and "Say" implies each and every individual; see there. Many have raised an objection against him, for it is explicitly explained in the Gemara there that for one, he does not call "Kohanim" because "Say" implies two. They answered with difficulty (see Beit Yosef, Bach, and Taz). In my humble opinion, it seems that it is not a difficulty at all: for while it is true that it implies two, nevertheless the Torah did not prevent an individual from blessing. On the contrary, it is an obligation upon him to bless, except that the sheliach tzibbur does not call "Kohanim." This is what the Tur says: that "Say to them" refers to each and every individual. That is to say: that the obligation of the blessing is upon each and every individual. If so, if they told him to ascend and he did not ascend, he violates a positive commandment. In truth, we can say that the Ri"f also holds this. Rather, the Ri"f says as follows: that an individual does not violate it, as it is written "Say to them," meaning: we derive from this that for one, the sheliach tzibbur does not call "Kohanim." Since the sheliach tzibbur did not call "Kohanim," he does not violate it, as I have written. And he is not dealing with a case where the congregation told him to ascend. The Tur, of necessity, is dealing with such a case (so it appears according to my humble opinion).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: When the kohanim do not wish to ascend to the duchan – they do not need to remain outside of the beit knesset except at the time when the chazzan calls "Kohanim." However, so that it will not be said that they are blemished – they conducted themselves not to enter the beit knesset until the priestly blessing is finished. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: that they do not wish because they do not have strength, for otherwise, why would they actively nullify a mitzvah? And we find in the Yerushalmi at the end of the chapter "Ein Omdin": Rabbi Yuda, when he was weak – would bind his head and stand behind a pillar. Rabbi Eleazar would go outside. That is to say: Rabbi Yuda would tie his head as a sign that he is weak of strength, so they would not suspect him. And he would stand in the beit knesset behind the pillar. And certainly at the time of the shliach tzibbur's calling "Kohanim" he was not in the beit knesset at all, for if not so, he would be transgressing a positive commandment. Rather, it refers to the time of the blessing. And Rabbi Eleazar did not rely even on this, and went out of the beit knesset until after the priestly blessing. And according to this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled like Rabbi Eleazar. And it appears that even if he makes a sign like Rabbi Yuda – he has fulfilled his obligation. And the Mordechai wrote that they should go out before the shliach tzibbur begins "Retzei," so that they will not suspect him when he does not uproot himself at "Retzei." And it is correct. And it appears to me that if he makes a sign – it is permitted, and only during the calling of "Kohanim" is he compelled to go out. And it is simple that if he is forbidden from ascending to the duchan, even if the prohibition is rabbinic – he may be in the beit knesset during the shliach tzibbur's calling of "Kohanim." And he does not transgress a positive commandment since he is not refraining of his own accord but rather the sages prevented him. And they have the authority to do so, and not like the one who disagrees on this (Magen Avraham, subsection 4, see there).

From the enactment of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, the kohanim shall not ascend with their sandals to the dukhan, but rather they must remove them. And the reason: for their shoes were tied with straps, and he feared lest a strap of his sandal break and he sit down to tie it, and he would tarry and not bless with his brothers the kohanim, and they would say of him that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a chalutzah who is unfit for the dukhan (Sotah 40a). And the intention is not that they should stand barefoot, for that is unseemly, but rather they should stand in socks. And even though in our shoes there are no straps and there is no such concern, nevertheless, they did not distinguish in the enactment, and it is like a matter that was forbidden by a quorum which is forbidden forever until those greater than the enactors come and nullify it. And it is obvious that we are like donkeys compared to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai.

And behold, it is certain that a sandal or shoe that is not of leather is permitted, for regarding Tisha B'Av and Yom Kippur they are not called a "shoe." However, if they also have tied straps, it appears that it is forbidden, for go after the reason. But when they do not have straps, it is obvious that it is permitted. Even though regarding a shoe it is forbidden because the sages did not distinguish, nevertheless, they did not decree upon this. And behold, in the Hagahot Maimoni at the end of the laws of prayer, he wrote that with leggings it is permitted, as I have written. And it is obvious that their intention is regarding those of leather, for if not so, even with a shoe it would be permitted. And according to this, one must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, in section 5, who wrote regarding the permission of leggings that there are those who are stringent if they are of leather, and they practiced to be lenient in some places. Thus far his words. And how is it possible to say so? For behold, when not of leather, even a shoe is permitted. And it must be said that his intention is regarding leggings that have ties, for in such a case with a shoe it is forbidden as I have written. But with leggings it is permitted, for they did not decree upon these ties which are on the leg (see Beit Yosef). Therefore, with leather, for in this they are similar to a shoe—it is forbidden even with such ties. (And it is clear that this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in sub-section 5. See there.) And there is one who wrote that those of cloth and covered with leather are permitted in any case (ibid.). And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is only when it does not have ties, for then even such a shoe is permitted. But with ties—it is forbidden as I have written, for go after the reason. (And that which the Rambam wrote "barefoot"—it is not meant precisely.)

It is stated in Sotah (39a): Any kohen who has not washed his hands shall not lift his hands, as it is said: "Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord." Rashi explained that he did not wash his hands prior to the nesiat kapayim. And it is clarified that it is not because of the tumah of the hands, and if his hands are pure from the washing of the hands in the morning, he does not need to wash his hands. Rather, it is a decree of the verse. And so the Tosafot wrote, see there. And it is simple that he must recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim," and so the Tur wrote. This is the wording of the Rambam in the fifteenth chapter of Tefillah: How so regarding the tumah of the hands? A kohen who has not washed his hands shall not lift his hands. Rather, he washes his hands up to the joint in the manner that they sanctify for the service, and afterward he blesses… Thus far his words. And it appears that it is specifically due to a concern of tumah, and if his hands are clean, he does not need to. For even regarding the service of the Beit HaMikdash, he ruled in the fifth chapter of Biat Mikdash that he sanctifies one time in the morning, and performs the service with this all day and all night (Beit Yosef). Therefore, due to doubt, he does not need to recite the blessing "al netilat yadayim," and such is the custom.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6: Even though the kohanim washed their hands in the morning – they return and wash their hands until the joint, which is the connection of the hand and the arm… And if the kohen washed his hands in the morning and recited the blessing "al netilat yadayim" – he should not return to bless when he washes his hands for nesiat kapayim. Thus far his words. And the reason is because of a legal doubt, as I have written. However, it is certain that if before nesiat kapayim he needed to relieve himself and washes his hands, he certainly recites the blessing "al netilat yadayim," for now the "al netilat yadayim" of the morning is nullified. However, they did not practice this (Magen Avraham, subsection 9), and there is no reason for this. And there is one who wrote that the Tur is a lone opinion in this, in that which he requires reciting the blessing "al netilat yadayim" (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 13). And it does not seem so at all, for since they said in the Gemara that he is obligated in netilat yadayim – it follows automatically that it requires a blessing. And it seems to me another reason for this: because it is the way of the kohanim to prepare themselves for the duchen, and when they need to relieve themselves they go beforehand and wash their hands by themselves not for the purpose of ascending the duchen, for for the duchen the Levites pour upon their hands. And if so, automatically since his hands do not require washing – he does not need to bless now because of the doubt, as I have written. And if because he did not bless "al netilat yadayim" beforehand – are blessings not indispensable? And in Sepharad where they bless every day – there are variations of customs among them, and they are not known to us. And they wrote that in Egypt they do not wash in the morning, and in Musaf they wash (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham). (And as for that which the Magen Avraham scrutinized in subsection 9, why the Beit Yosef wrote "and recited the blessing al netilat yadayim": the Eliyah Rabbah wrote simply in subsection 12 that his intention is that if he did not have water in the morning, and rubbed with a pebble and recited the blessing "al nekiyut yadayim," then he does not need to bless "al netilat yadayim" afterwards. And then when he ascends the duchen, he recites the blessing "al netilat yadayim.")

The common custom is that the Levi'im pour water on the hands of the Kohanim, based on the Zohar, parashat "Naso," because the Levi'im are also called "holy." Furthermore, it is possible to say this is in remembrance of our Holy Temple, for then the Levi'im served in guarding the Temple under the authority of the Kohanim, and therefore they serve the Kohanim now as well. If there is no Levi in the beit knesset—the firstborns who are the first of the womb pour, meaning a firstborn to his mother, for they too are holy. A Levi who is a talmid chacham should not pour on the hands of a Kohen who is an am ha'aretz. Some have cautioned regarding this very much, so as not to degrade his Torah. However, nowadays it is impossible to stand by this because it could lead to dispute, and everything is for the sake of Heaven. Behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6 that the Levi also needs to wash his hands beforehand. His reasoning appears to be as we say generally: Let the pure come and atone for the pure. But our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the Levi'im are not accustomed to washing their hands first, but rather they rely on their washing in the morning. Thus far his words. And such is the common custom. It is obvious that one requires water that is valid for netilat yadayim, according to all the laws of netilat yadayim for eating and in a vessel. One should not permit placing types of scents in the water, for we require water that has not changed from its natural state, as I wrote in siman 160 (Magen Avraham, subsection 8).

The kohanim should see to it to wash their hands before "Retzei," for once the sheliach tzibbur has begun "Retzei" – all the kohanim must uproot from their places to ascend to the dukhan. And even if he does not arrive there until the sheliach tzibbur finishes "Retzei," it is fine. But if he did not uproot during "Retzei" – he may not ascend thereafter, even if he was under duress, such as if he was praying. Nevertheless, if he did ascend – he shall not descend (ibid. subsection 10). And the uprooting of his feet from his house to the synagogue is not considered an uprooting unless his house is adjacent to the synagogue (ibid.). And it appears to me that post facto, if he uprooted his feet during "Retzei" to wash his hands – it is also called an uprooting, for behold, he uproots himself from his place to ascend to the dukhan by means of washing his hands.

When the kohanim uproot their feet to ascend the dukan, they say: "May it be Your will, Hashem our God, that this blessing which You commanded us to bless Your people Israel be a complete blessing, and let there be no obstacle or iniquity in it from now and forever." And they extend this prayer until the "Amen" of the blessing of thanksgiving is finished from the mouth of the congregation. This is the wording of the Gemara ibid.: When he uproots his feet, what does he say? "May it be Your will...". Rashi and Tosafot explained that he says this upon the place of the dukan. But the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote the wording that we have written, that during his walking they should begin to say the "May it be Your will." And among us the custom is that after "Modim" they say this. And the reason appears to be: because we do not perform nesiat kapayim except on Yom Tov, and we say the prayer of "Veha'arev." And on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur there is also the prayer of "Avinu Malkeinu, remember Your mercies...". And if they were to begin immediately upon their standing on the dukan—they would finish much before the blessing of thanksgiving, and therefore they begin afterward. Furthermore: for "Modim" would be an interruption (see Magen Avraham, subsection 12). And in their days they said the "Modim" during their walking (ibid.). And the matter of this blessing appears to me: that since it is a decree of the King to bless Israel through the kohanim, if so, if the kohanim have evil deeds—they are not worthy that through their mediation the blessing should be influenced. For this they pray that it be a complete blessing without obstacle or iniquity, similar to the matter of: "And let not sin or iniquity hinder our prayer."

When they ascend the platform—they stand with their faces toward the Sanctuary and their backs toward the people, and their fingers are bent into their palms, unlike during the blessing itself. This continues until the shaliach tzibbur finishes the blessing of "whose name is good...", and the congregation answers "Amen," and the shaliach tzibbur says aloud "Kohanim"—and then they turn their faces toward the people and their backs toward the Sanctuary. For thus the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded: "Thus shall you bless"—say to them face to face, like a man speaking to his fellow (Sotah 38a). And how beloved are Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, that He permitted the Kohanim to stand with their backs toward the Sanctuary for the sake of the blessings of Israel. And the shaliach tzibbur shall not say at all "Our God and God of our fathers bless us...", for it has no relevance to the birkat kohanim. And even those who are accustomed to saying it should be careful to say it in a whisper. And when he reaches "Kohanim" he should say "Kohanim" aloud, and "Your holy people as it is said" in a whisper. And so we practice in these lands. And there are some meshulchei tzibbur who err, saying aloud "Our God...", and they must be warned about this. And so it is explicitly proven in Sotah (39b) where it says there: The caller is not permitted to call "Kohanim" until the "Amen" is finished from the mouth of the congregation—behold, the calling of Kohanim is immediately adjacent to the blessing. And the shaliach tzibbur only calls "Kohanim" for two, as it is written: "Say to them." But if there was only one Kohen—he ascends on his own, turns his face and blesses, for the Torah obligated an individual as well to bless, as I wrote in section 9. However, since the shaliach tzibbur does not call him, it follows that he does not transgress a positive commandment if he did not ascend, unless others said to him "ascend." And some say that for an individual it is only a rabbinic obligation (Tosafot Menachot 44a). But the opinion of the Tur is not so, as I wrote there. (And also the Tosafot did not write this with simplicity, and on the contrary, they wrote that at the very least he is obligated rabbinically. And see Magen Avraham subsection 16. And examine and you will find it easy.)

In most places it is known that the aron kodesh is in the east, and the kohanim turn their faces to the west. And if the aron kodesh is in the south or in the north, there is one who says that they should turn their faces toward the side of the sheliach tzibbur and not to the west (Magen Avraham subsection 15). And there are places that are not meticulous about this (ibid.). And in truth, I do not understand: for the Torah cautioned regarding the faces of the majority of the congregation, and if so, the matter is simple—that to the place where the majority of the congregation stands, there they should turn their faces. And know that the primary standing of the kohanim is near the aron kodesh. And this is the place of the dukhan, just as in the Beit HaMikdash they stood in a specific place on the dukhan, the meaning of which is: a specific place like an "itztaba," as the Bartenura wrote at the end of the second chapter of Middot. And from this is the wording in the Mishnah in Kelim chapter seven: since it has a receptacle. And the Targum explained on "Lift your hands in holiness" – "Lift your hands, kohanim, upon the dukhan of holiness." Therefore, they must stand there. And if the kohanim are many, they should stand at the sides of the dukhan at the eastern wall, and such is the simple custom in all countries. Therefore, the kohen shall not stand at his place where he always stands, for he must uproot from his place as I wrote in section 16. And several kohanim do not know this law, and therefore one is obligated to inform them that they should not do so.

In the Gemara it is not explicitly clarified whether the blessing the kohanim recite, "Who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron and commanded us to bless His people Israel with love," is recited while their faces are toward the Heikhal, or while their faces are toward the public. The Rambam at the end of the fourteenth chapter wrote explicitly that they bless while their faces are toward the Heikhal, and after the blessing they turn their faces toward the public, see there. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 11, wrote that first they turn their faces toward the people, and afterward they bless. And such is the custom among us. There are those who begin the blessing while their faces are toward the Heikhal, and in the middle of the blessing they turn their faces toward the people (Pri Chadash). And this is certainly puzzling. The simple custom is like the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch.

And that which they say "with love," they explained according to the Zohar that any kohen who does not love the people, or the people do not love him – he shall not lift his hands (Magen Avraham subsection 18). And according to this, the kohen should accept upon himself at the time of the act to love the congregation, and likewise the congregation should so love the kohanim. And each one of the kohanim recites this blessing, and it is not that one blesses and all of them answer "Amen." And even though regarding all blessings it is better that one blesses and fulfills the obligation for the many, because "in the multitude of people is the King's glory" as is stated in Berakhot (53a) – here it is not possible so that they do not become confused. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 17.)

The kohanim raise their hands opposite their shoulders, and they raise the right hand slightly higher than the left, and they stretch out their hands and separate their fingers. And the reason that he should raise the right hand higher is as it is written: "And Aaron lifted up his hands." But is it not written "his hand"? To teach that one is higher than the second, and it is the right hand in order to strengthen the right, which is chesed, over the left, which is gevurah. And they intend to make five spaces with the two hands, and they are: between two fingers and two fingers, and between the finger and the thumb, and between thumb and thumb; between two fingers in two hands are two spaces, and likewise between the finger and the thumb, and one between thumb and thumb, as it is written: "Peering through the lattices" — from the five lattices. And they spread their palms so that the inside of their palms shall be toward the ground, and the backs of their hands toward the heavens. And even though he raises the right slightly, nevertheless he must be careful to place the finger of the right over the left so that they do not separate from one another, so that there should not be more than "five lattices" (Magen Avraham, subsection 19). And some mark the Name Havayah with their fingers (ibid.), and some the Name Shaddai (Beit Yosef). And this requires extra caution, and not everyone is expert in this, and therefore they refrain from this. And we have only that which is explained in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.

And the kohanim begin to say "Yevarekhekha" without the calling of the sheliach tzibbur, for in the first word there is no concern of error. Afterward, the sheliach tzibbur calls them word by word, and they repeat after him every word until they conclude the verse of "Yevarekhekha," and the congregation answers "Amen." And so too in "Ya'er," the sheliach tzibbur calls, and the congregation answers "Amen" after "Viychuneka." And so too in "Yissa" until "Shalom," and the congregation answers "Amen." Afterward, the sheliach tzibbur begins "Sim Shalom." Then the kohanim turn their faces back toward the Heikhal and say: Master of the Universe, we have done what You decreed upon us. You do what You promised us: "Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel." And they shall prolong this prayer until the sheliach tzibbur concludes "Sim Shalom," so that the congregation answers "Amen" to both of them. If they cannot prolong it that much, they shall say "Adir BaMarom," as I have written below in siman 130. And on Rosh Chodesh and Yom Kippur, when they prolong "Hayom Te'amtzenu..." — they shall not begin to say "Ribbon" until the end, so that they conclude together with the congregation as one. And regarding that which we wrote that they say "Yevarekhekha" on their own, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 13 that there are those who say that the sheliach tzibbur calls "Yevarekhekha" for them first as well, and such is the custom in all these provinces. Thus far his words. This is because there are further hidden reasons for why the sheliach tzibbur calls them.

They only bless in the holy tongue and not in a foreign tongue. And this is an absolute requirement, for even after the fact they have not fulfilled their obligation, as it is written: "So shall you bless," meaning in the holy tongue. And specifically while standing, as it is written: "To serve Him and to bless in His name" – just as service is while standing, as it is written "to stand to serve," so too the blessing is while standing. And specifically with nesiat kapayim, meaning with the lifting of the hands, as it is written: "And Aaron lifted his hands toward the people and blessed them." And in a loud voice, as it is written: "Say to them" – like a person speaking to his fellow. And this means it should be a moderate voice: neither very loud nor soft. And the kohanim are not permitted to turn their faces back until the sheliach tzibbur begins "Sim Shalom." And they are not permitted to fold their fingers until they turn their faces back and stand there. And they are not permitted to move from there until the sheliach tzibbur finishes "Sim Shalom," and the reason we have written in section 2. And there is one who says that they must wait until the congregation finishes answering "Amen" after "Who blesses...", and such is the custom. And it is customary to say to the kohanim "Yasher Kochachem," and they respond "May you be blessed."

When they turn their faces toward the people – they should turn by way of the right, which is to say, when one stands facing east, he should turn his face by way of the south. And afterward, when they turn their faces back toward the heikhal, and they were standing facing west – they should turn by way of the north. For we have a general rule: all turns that you turn should be by way of the right. And when they descend from the dukhan, they should descend backward, like a student taking leave of his teacher, so that their faces are toward the aron kodesh during their descent. And when they put on their shoes – they should put them on with a cloth over their hands. And if they put them on with their hands – they must wash their hands, for they still have a bit more to pray.

How was the birkat kohanim in the Mikdash? The kohanim, after they completed the morning tamid service as I wrote in section 1, would ascend the dukhan. The location of the dukhan is between the court of Israel and the court of the kohanim. There was a step there one amah high, extending across the entire length of the court, and upon it was placed a platform an amah and a half high. They would ascend it by three steps of a half-amah each. This is the location of the dukhan, where the kohanim stood in the priestly garments and recited birkat kohanim. It appears to me that even without the priestly garments it is valid, for this is not of the sacrificial service. And the proof: for standing requires a derivation as I wrote in section 24, and perhaps from this very derivation we should learn that priestly garments are required, since the Merciful One compared it to the service. This requires further study. And know that the Rambam in the sixth chapter of Tamidin wrote that the location of the dukhan was on the steps of the Ulam, see there. And perhaps he interprets that which we learned in Middot chapter two (mishnah 6): Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: There was a step and it was an amah high, and the dukhan was placed upon it. And it had three steps... this is the dukhan of the Levites. But the Rash and the Bartenura explained that there the kohanim blessed, see there.

And after they have ascended the duchen – they raise their hands upward above their heads, except for the High Priest, who does not raise his hands above the tzitz because of the Name written upon it. And they stretch out their fingers, and another man calls out to them word by word as in the borders. And the difference is that in the borders they answer "Amen" after every verse as I have written, but in the Mikdash they do not answer "Amen." And so we learned in Sotah (37b): The priestly blessing in the Mikdash is one blessing, and in the province it is three blessings. Therefore, they say the three verses without interruption. And when he finishes "Shalom," all the people answer: "Blessed be Hashem, the God, the God of Israel, from world to world." For so it is explicit in Nehemiah (9:5): "Rise up and bless Hashem your God from world to world." And so they would answer for each and every blessing (ibid. 40b) and not "Amen." (And the reason they do not answer "Amen" in the Mikdash: the Maharsha wrote there that it is because "Amen" is a combination of the two Names, Havayah and Adonai. Therefore, this is relevant in the borders where they do not read the Name as it is written, but not in the Mikdash, see there. And we hold that if so, after the death of Shimon HaTzaddik they should answer "Amen." And in my humble opinion it seems that "Amen" strengthens the blessing, so that the abundance descends through the house of God "and this is the gate of heaven." But those who stand and bless there, the abundance has already descended from the source. Analyze and you will find it easy.)

The kohanim in the Mikdash would pronounce the Name as it is written, with Yud-Kei-Vav-Kei. The Rambam wrote that this is the Shem HaMeforash mentioned everywhere. But in the province, they say it by its substitute with Aleph-Dalet. From the time Shimon HaTzaddik died, the kohanim ceased to bless with the Name as it is written even in the Mikdash because of the deterioration of the generations, so that a person who is unworthy would not learn it. The early sages would not teach this Name to their students and their worthy sons except for once every seven years, for the concealment is greatness for His honored and awesome Name. So wrote the Rambam there, and this is explained in Kiddushin (71a), see there.

The shaliach tzibbur does not call "Kohanim" until "Amen" is finished from the mouths of the entire congregation, which they answer after the blessing of "Modim." And even though in siman 124 it was explained that one does not need to wait for those who prolong the "Amen," nevertheless, Birkat Kohanim is different, for behold, everyone is obligated to hear (Taz, subsection 12). And the Kohanim are not permitted to begin the blessing "Who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aaron" until the speech of the calling of "Kohanim" is finished from the mouth of the shaliach tzibbur. And the Kohanim, after they have recited this blessing, are not permitted to begin "Yevarekhekha," nor the shaliach tzibbur when he calls out, until "Amen" is finished from the mouths of the entire congregation, which they answer after the blessing of "Who has sanctified us..." And so too, they are not permitted to begin any word until the caller finishes his calling. And the shaliach tzibbur shall not begin the word that follows this word until all the Kohanim finish the previous word. And the congregation does not answer until the blessing is finished from the mouths of the Kohanim, and the shaliach tzibbur shall not begin another verse until everyone is silent. And the Kohanim shall not say "Veyishmerekha" until the congregation finishes "Ribbono Shel Olam," and likewise "Veyichuneka" and "Shalom."

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18 that the kohanim should not begin "Ribbon" which follows Birkat Kohanim until the "Amen" is finished from the mouths of the congregation. Thus far his words. And it is a wonder: for it was previously explained that they should not say it until the sheliach tzibbur begins "Sim Shalom" (Bach), and then they turn their faces and say "Ribbon" as I wrote in section 23, and that is later than the "Amen" that the congregation answers. And there is one who says that the one who prompts does not truly need to wait for the entire congregation, and therefore the sheliach tzibbur can begin "Sim Shalom" before everyone answers "Amen" (Magen Avraham, subsection 28). But it does not imply so (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 37). And in my humble opinion, it appears that in truth the kohanim can say the "Ribbon" before the sheliach tzibbur says "Sim Shalom," for what does one matter have to do with the other? The delay is only because of the "Amen." And that which they wrote previously, "until he begins Sim Shalom" – is merely a sign, for presumably the sheliach tzibbur does not begin "Sim Shalom" until the "Amen" is finished, and he is expert in this. And for this reason, it teaches us here that the delay is only because of the "Amen" of the congregation that they answer for "Shalom."

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 19: The shaliach tzibbur is not permitted to answer "amen" after the blessing of the kohanim. Thus far his words. And this is a Mishnah in Berakhot (34a): One who passes before the ark shall not answer "amen" after the kohanim because of confusion. Rashi explained: So that his mind will not be confused and he will err, such that he will not be able to intend to begin the blessing that follows it. The Rambam wrote similarly in chapter 14. From this, the Tosafot inferred that "amen" does not constitute an interruption, since it did not state the reason is because of interruption, see there. This is because these amens are a necessity of the prayer, and according to this, if he is confident that he will not become confused—he is permitted to answer "amen" as in the law that will be explained. This is also explicit in Midrash Rabbah, Parashat "Ki Tavo." But if so, why did the poskim not explain this? Therefore, some say that we do not learn halacha from the mouth of a Midrash. Specifically regarding the law below, so that the birkat kohanim will not be nullified entirely, we rely on the fact that he will not become confused, but not for the sake of his answering "amen" (Bach and Tosafot Yom Tov ibid.). According to this, there is one who says that after the first blessing of the kohanim, which is after the blessing "who has sanctified us with the sanctity of Aharon"—he may answer, for when he has not yet begun, there is no confusion (Taz, end of 114). And some say that we hold like the Midrash, that if he is confident—he may answer all the amens in birkat kohanim (Magen Avraham, subsection 29, and Pri Chadash). But the custom is not so. And perhaps because we do not have it that one would be confident in this, for in truth it is difficult to reject the words of the Midrash. And how does "we do not learn..." apply to this, given that there is no contradiction in the Gemara to this? And every kohen blesses and does not fulfill his obligation with the blessing of the other, for regarding birkat kohanim, each one is personally obligated to bless.

If the shaliach tzibbur is a kohen, and there are other kohanim there—he shall not lift his hands. And they should not say to him before "Retzei" to ascend or to lift his hands, for if they said to him—he is obligated to ascend so that he does not transgress a positive commandment. But after "Retzei" we have no concern with it, as has been explained. Therefore, even though he himself calls "Kohanim"—he does not transgress, because at "Retzei" they said nothing to him. And there is one who wrote that some practice even when there are other kohanim, since he is a kohen—another man, an Yisrael who heard the entire repetition of the shaliach tzibbur, stands next to him and prompts the kohanim, and also says "Sim Shalom" and concludes the blessing. And the shaliach tzibbur says Kaddish (Bach). But he does not go to wash his hands (Magen Avraham subsection 31). And there are places where he also goes to wash his hands (ibid.). And it appears to me that according to these customs, it is not relevant to distinguish between whether he is confident that he will return to his prayer or not confident, since the other person concludes the entire prayer. But all the essentials of these customs are perplexing, and it is explicitly implied from all the poskim that when there are other kohanim—it is not only that he does not wash his hands, but even that he does not say [the blessing] with the kohanim. Rather, he prompts them, and another shall not stand to prompt them (and so wrote the Magen Avraham there). And such is the primary ruling.

However, if there is no kohen there except for him, and in order that the nesiat kapayim not be nullified entirely, therefore if there is another Yisrael who heard the entire repetition of the sheliach tzibbur—the sheliach tzibbur shall uproot himself from his place slightly before "Retzei" and return to his place. And he shall say until "ha-tov shimcha," and the Yisrael shall call out to him and he shall ascend the duchan, and the Yisrael shall say until "ha-mevarech..." and he descends from his place and says the full Kaddish. But he does not need to wash his hands, since he is standing in prayer and his hands are clean—he may rely on the washing of the hands of the morning. And if there is no other who heard the repetition of the sheliach tzibbur in its entirety, regarding this we learned in Berakhot there that if he is not confident that he will not become confused—he shall not perform nesiat kapayim, and the nesiat kapayim shall be nullified. However, if he is confident that he will return to his prayer without distraction of mind, since there is no kohen there except for him—he shall perform nesiat kapayim so that nesiat kapayim is not nullified entirely. And how shall he act? He shall uproot his feet slightly at "Avodah" and return to his place, and say "Retzei" until "ha-tov shimcha...", and ascend the duchan and another shall call out to him. And after "Shalom" he shall descend from the duchan and finish "Sim Shalom." (So it appears to me. And see Magen Avraham, subsection 33, who wrote in the name of the Bach that even if there is another who heard and the other also says "Sim Shalom," nevertheless we require that he be confident to return to his prayer. And it is not understood at all, and the Magen Avraham also questioned him, see there. And see Taz, subsection 15, and the primary view is as I have written. And examine and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 22: We endeavor that the one who calls out be a Yisrael. And when the chazzan is a kohen—a Yisrael should stand next to him, and he calls out "kohanim" and prompts them, and the chazzan stands and remains silent. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam, chapter 14. And he gave a reason from that which is written: "Say to them"—behold, a Yisrael must prompt the kohanim. And according to this, in that which has been explained that when there are other kohanim he does not lift his hands, but nevertheless he also does not prompt, but rather stands and remains silent. And it is not like what I wrote in section 32, that he himself calls out "kohanim," see there, for this he should not do. And despite all this, we endeavor ab initio that the one who calls out be a Yisrael, meaning that the shaliach tzibbur be a Yisrael (Magen Avraham, subsection 34), so that we do not require that another prompt and not the shaliach tzibbur. But the Levush wrote that even this is not a requirement, and the shaliach tzibbur who is a kohen can also be the prompter, see there. For the reason of "Say to them" is only a mere asmakhta that it be specifically from a Yisrael. And behold, in Sotah (38a) there is one who holds specifically the opposite: that the one who calls out be a kohen. And he expounds "Say to them"—from among them, see there. And granted that we do not rule thus, nevertheless, the exposition of "Say to them" is only that they should be prompted, but who the prompter shall be is of no concern. And it seems to me that the custom is also thus. (See Taz, subsection 17, who wrote that the plain meaning of the verse is that the prompter be a Yisrael. And his words are puzzling: for if so, how does Rav Chisda disagree there to say specifically the opposite, that the prompter be a kohen? See there.)

The kohanim are not permitted to sing two or three melodies during the birkat kohanim, because there is a concern of confusion of the mind. And they should only sing one melody from beginning to end. So wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 21. And it is somewhat implied from this that, in any event, they should sing one melody. And ostensibly, why should they not remain completely silent? And perhaps from this they will come to awakening and enthusiasm to bless with intention, in the manner of "And it was, when the musician played, that the spirit of Hashem came upon him." And the custom of Israel is Torah.

At the time when the kohanim bless the people, they shall not look and they shall not divert their attention; rather, their eyes shall be directed downward in the manner that one stands in prayer. The people shall focus on the blessings, and their faces shall be toward the faces of the kohanim, but they shall not gaze at them. The reason is not because anyone who gazes at the kohanim at the time of the dukhan his eyes grow dim, as is stated in Chagigah (16a), for that was only in the time of the Temple as is explained there. Rather, the reason is so they do not divert their attention. Furthermore: in order to create thereby a remembrance of the Temple (Magen Avraham subsection 35 and Taz subsection 19). The kohanim themselves also shall not gaze at their hands for the reasons that have been explained. Therefore, they are accustomed to lower the tallit significantly over their faces, with their hands outside the tallit. There are places where they are accustomed for their hands to be inside the tallit so that they cannot gaze at them, and others also cannot gaze, as the tallit obscures the hands. This is the common custom among us.

"Thus shall you bless" – face to face, as it is written: "Say to them" – like a man speaking to his fellow (Sotah 38a). Therefore, the sages said that the people behind the kohanim are not included in the blessing, for they are not face to face. And it is not specifically that they must stand exactly opposite their faces, but even from the sides, since it is face to face; that is to say: the kohanim have their faces toward the west and the Israelites have their faces toward the east. And specifically the sides in front of them and not the sides behind them, which means when a line is drawn they would be behind the kohanim. Therefore, the custom is that all the people go from the eastern wall and further, because the aron kodesh protrudes significantly and the kohanim stand before the aron. Therefore, those in the east would be on the sides that are behind the kohanim. And there is one who wrote that when one stands in his specifically designated place – he does not need to move, for he is like one under duress (Bach). But this is only when the people are numerous and crowded. However, when there is vacant space, why should he not move to fulfill the law properly (Magen Avraham subsection 36)? But those standing in the courtyard may stand there when their faces are toward the kohanim. And the partition does not intervene, for even an iron partition does not intervene between Israel and their Father in Heaven (Eruvin 92b Tosafot starting with "Ta'aseh"). And more than this: even the people in the fields are included in the blessing since they are under duress, since they are occupied with their work and cannot come – they are included in the blessing. But one who is not under duress is obligated to come and hear the blessing. (See Taz subsection 20, who wishes to settle the words of the Bach with a very forced reason. See there.)

It is stated in Sotah (38b): A beit knesset where everyone is kohanim, if there are more than ten—those in excess of ten shall bless, and ten answer "Amen" after them. And even though regarding Israelites we are not particular that specifically ten answer "Amen," this is because the mitzvah is for kohanim to bless Israel, and one is sufficient since the mitzvah is performed properly. But when the listeners are also kohanim—they require at least ten listeners, for upon every gathering of ten the Shekhinah rests and not with fewer. And if there are only ten kohanim—they all bless. And whom do they bless? Their brothers who are in the fields. And who are those who answer "Amen"? We say in the Yerushalmi, fifth chapter of Berakhot, that the women and children answer "Amen" after them. And why do we not say that they bless the women and children, for they too are included in the blessing as we say in Sotah ibid.? It seems to me because the husbands of the women and the fathers of the children presumably hear the blessings in some place and are blessed, and automatically all the members of their household are blessed, for is the blessing upon the man alone? And if he does not see blessing in his wife and the fruit of his womb—there is no greater curse than this, as is understood, as it is written: "Your wife shall be as a fruitful vine, your children like olive plants. Behold, for so shall the man who fears Hashem be blessed." Therefore they said only to the people who are in the fields. (See Taz, subsection 22, Magen Avraham, subsection 37. And according to our words it settles well with simplicity.)

At the time the kohanim are blessing, the people should not say verses. Rather, they are silent and listen and answer "Amen," for is there any servant who is being blessed and does not listen? So they ruled in the Gemara ibid. And that which we say the "Ribono Shel Olam" regarding the nullification of a bad dream, this is because there is danger in the matter they permitted it (Taz subsection 24). Furthermore: for in truth we say this at the time the kohanim are singing. And also verses one may say then, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 26, and this is his wording: And now that the kohanim lengthen much with melodies – it has become the custom to also say verses, and as I wrote above in siman 57 regarding the matter of "Barchu." However, it is better not to say them. Thus far his words. And one can say them at the time the sheliach tzibbur calls out the word (Magen Avraham subsection 39). However, this is when he lengthens somewhat in the drawing out of the word with a melody, but otherwise there is no time (Taz subsection 25). And we do not practice saying them at all. And it is better to be silent and to intend to receive the flow of the blessings; since the halacha was decided not to say them, why do we need this?

A kohen shall not add to the blessings. And he shall not say: Since the Holy One, Blessed be He, gives me permission to bless, I will add from my own. For example: "May the Lord, the God of your fathers, add to you," and the like. And it is forbidden for him to do so. And if he did so, he violates "do not add," for it is written: "Thus shall you bless" – and no more. And it is a kal vachomer that it is forbidden to subtract, and if he subtracted, he violates "do not diminish." Nevertheless, a kohen who raised his hands, and afterwards went to another beit knesset and found a congregation that had not yet reached the priestly blessing – he may raise his hands another time. And he does not violate "do not add," for "do not add" only applies to one who adds to the essence of the mitzvah, but not to one who performs the mitzvah multiple times. And it is like the taking of the lulav, where one may take the lulav many times in a day, and nevertheless, if he did not bless – he does not violate a positive commandment, since he already blessed once. And it is good that he should leave the beit knesset so that they do not cast aspersions upon him. And in all cases that have been explained and that will be explained where they should not ascend the duchen – they should leave the beit knesset (Taz, subsection 26).

A kohen who is standing in prayer, if there are other kohanim there—he shall not interrupt. And if there is no other kohen there besides him—he shall interrupt and ascend to the duchan. And even though for another matter it is forbidden to interrupt during prayer, nesiat kapayim is different as it is a positive commandment. And since without him the commandment will not be fulfilled—he is obligated to interrupt. And if they told him to ascend to the duchan, even if there are other kohanim there he must interrupt, so that he does not transgress a positive commandment. And so too a kohen who has not yet prayed, and found a congregation praying and standing at nesiat kapayim—he shall ascend to the duchan and afterwards pray, for the prayer does not prevent him. And if he sees that the time for prayer will pass—he shall go outside the synagogue and pray. And if they told him to ascend—he is obligated to ascend so that he does not transgress a positive commandment (Magen Avraham, subsection 41), for this is from the Torah and prayer is rabbinic. And so too if there is no kohen besides him—he is obligated to ascend even if the time for prayer will pass. And if he sees that the time for the recitation of Shema will pass—he shall say the first verse and ascend to the duchan, even though there are other kohanim (it appears to me).

There are matters that the rabbis decreed regarding kohanim that they should not ascend to the dukhan, such as if he has a deformity on his face or on his hands, which are very visible places; that is, if his hands are white-spotted, marked with fine dots, or crooked, or twisted—meaning bent to their sides—or if he cannot separate his fingers. And a deformity on his face as well, when his face is different from other people, the sages said he should not ascend to the dukhan because the people will gaze at him and will not hear the blessings. And it is better that they leave the synagogue than to cause the people to neglect the mitzvah. And even if they told him to ascend—he does not ascend. And he does not transgress a positive commandment, for he does not ascend due to the enactment of the sages. And there is power in the hands of the sages to do so. And likewise for one who has deformities on his feet in a place where they walk barefoot without socks, and likewise one whose saliva runs down upon his beard, or his eyes drip tears, or a blind person even in one of his eyes—he shall not lift his hands. And all of these, if they are familiar in their city such that they recognize them—they may ascend to the dukhan, for since they are familiar with them, they will not gaze at them on account of their deformity, as this is not a novelty to them. And even if he is blind in both his eyes—he may ascend to the dukhan, and he is like all the kohanim. And anyone who has stayed thirty days in the city is called "familiar in his city." And specifically in his city. But if he goes happenstance to another city, even if he stayed there thirty days, he is not called "familiar," for he is like a guest to them and they gaze at him. And he is not considered familiar unless he comes to dwell there permanently, for then in thirty days he is called "familiar." And not specifically to dwell there forever, but rather: a permanent stay for a time. For example, if he came to be a teacher there, or a scribe, or a servant, or a craftsman, for a year or even half a year—he is called "familiar in his city" when he has stayed thirty days (and the Bach permits even in a happenstance case).

And all this is in places where the hands and faces of the kohanim are revealed at the time of the dukhan, for then there is a concern that they will look at him. But if the custom of the place is that the kohanim drape the tallit over their faces – then there is no concern of looking at blemishes on his face. And if the custom is that their hands are also under the tallit, as is the custom among us – then there is no concern even regarding blemishes on his hands. But in a place where there is no custom to do so, even if they wish now to do so – it is not effective, for this itself will cause looking because of the change they are making (Magen Avraham, subsection 45). But that which the people cover their faces with their tallitot is not effective, for there are several youths who do not have a tallit. And furthermore: for the listeners sometimes reveal their faces, which is not the case with the kohanim. Therefore, this is not effective. (See Taz, subsection 28, who raised this difficulty. And according to what I have written, it is not difficult at all.)

And there is a question regarding this: for it implies explicitly that only because of looking did the rabbis decree, but according to the law it is permitted for a person with a blemish to ascend to the duchan. And why should he not be disqualified according to the law, just as he is disqualified for the service of the Beit HaMikdash? For behold, blessing is juxtaposed with service, as I have written (Taz, subsection 27). And the answer to this: because regarding the priestly blessing it is written: "Speak to Aaron and to his sons" – even those with blemishes are included, as Rashi explained in Parashat Emor, see there (ibid.). Furthermore: this is no question at all, for regarding a person with a blemish it is written in Parashat Emor: "whoever has a blemish in him, he shall not approach to offer..." – behold, the Torah explicitly explained that only for offering is it forbidden. And besides all this, this matter is explicit in the Gemara in Taanit (27a): If just as a ministering kohen with a blemish is not [fit], so too one who blesses... behold, it is juxtaposed with a nazir. And the Tosafot wrote that from here it is clarified that a person with a blemish is permitted in nesiat kapayim, see there and in the Tosafot at the end of Menachot. (And it is a wonder that the Tosafot cited there from Taanit: "I juxtaposed it for standing and not for anything else," see there. And this is not found at all in Taanit. And they have already noticed this there in the margin, see there.)

And so too if his hands were dyed with isatis or madder, which are types of dyes that cannot be removed by washing – he shall not lift his hands, because the people will look at them. But if his hands are black from the soot of ovens – he can wash them. And if the majority of the city's work is in this – he shall lift his hands, for they will not look because they are accustomed to it. And so too if he was well-known in his city – it is permitted (Beit Yosef), and so too in places where the hands are covered under the tallit as I have written. And so too one who does not know how to articulate the letters, such as one who calls alephs ayins, and ayins alephs, and chets hehs and the like, in a place where everyone speaks properly he shall not lift his hands, because he does not say the blessings properly. And this was in their days and in their land. But among us everyone reads an aleph like an ayin, and an ayin like an aleph. And even a kohen who cannot say a right-dot shin, such as "shibboleth"-"sibboleth" – there is no concern among us for there are many like them, and this is not a great change in the letter (see Taz subsection 30).

We learned in a Mishnah in Megillah (24b) that a katan does not lift his hands. And in Sukkah at the end of the third chapter, they said that a katan who knows how to lift his hands—we distribute terumah to him, and it implies that a katan lifts his hands. And at the end of the first chapter of Chullin (24b), they said that even an adult, as long as his beard has not filled out, he does not lift his hands, see there. And the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote there that there are also distinctions: that a katan who has not brought two hairs does not lift his hands at all when he is alone, but with other kohanim, he lifts his hands. And this is that of Sukkah and that of Megillah. And when he has brought two hairs—he can lift his hands even when he is alone. However, this is occasionally, but to lift his hands regularly—it is only if his beard has filled out. And this is that of Chullin, for there it deals with the matters of a regular shaliach tzibbur. And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 34. And he wrote that "his beard has filled out" is called when his years have reached this stage, even though it has not filled out yet, see there.

The words of the Rambam in this matter require investigation, for he wrote in chapter fifteen, law 4: Regarding years, how so? A Kohen who is a youth shall not lift his hands until his beard is full. And it implies explicitly that prior to this he does not lift his hands at all, for he counted it among all those who are disqualified. And it is true that the Tur also wrote so, and this is his wording: A minor, or even an adult whose beard is not full – does not lift his hands. However, the Tur concludes: And these words apply when he is alone. But with others, from the time he knows how to lift his hands – he lifts them with them. Thus far his words. And according to this, he would interpret that which is in Chullin as being when he is alone, and similarly that which is in Megillah and that which is in Sukkah as being with others. And one should not ask regarding that which is in Megillah: why specifically a minor, for even an adult as well as long as his beard is not full? For certainly it is so. But in Megillah it is not dealing with the laws of nesiat kapayim but rather with the laws of a minor, and it counts also that of nesiat kapayim. But on the Rambam it is difficult. And there is one who wrote that the Rambam also holds this distinction (Beit Yosef). And this is certainly a wonder, for if so, why did he not mention it? And there is one who wrote that the Rambam interpreted that which is in Sukkah that only if he knows how to spread his hands do they distribute terumah to him, but to lift his hands he is not permitted (Lechem Mishneh). And this is even more forced. However, they labored over his words in vain, for the Rambam had a different version in Sukkah, as is clear from his words at the end of chapter twelve of Terumot, where he counts among the ten to whom they do not distribute terumah: a minor who does not know how to guard his statute, see there. And so it is in the Tosefta, chapter one of Chagigah, see there. And it does not refer at all to nesiat kapayim, but rather that he does not know how to guard his conduct in the manner of a person of understanding. (See Kesef Mishneh there who interpreted "to guard his statute" as referring to nesiat kapayim. And it is a wondrous thing.)

One should not wonder, whether according to the system of the Rambam, that when his beard has not filled out he does not perform nesiat kapayim at all, or according to the system of the Tur that he does not ascend alone, or according to the Tosafot and the Rosh that he cannot permanently ascend to the dukan alone, and if there is no other, nesiat kapayim is nullified—from where did our sages, of blessed memory, have the basis to say this? For is not an adult obligated in all the mitzvot? For it seems to me that we derive this since it is written: "Speak to Aaron and to his sons: So shall you bless...", and Aaron and his sons' beards had filled out. Therefore, by Torah law he is entirely exempt according to the system of the Rambam. And according to the Tur, when there are others with them, behold the obligation is upon the others. And according to the system of the Tosafot and the Rosh, we do not compare him to Aaron and his sons unless it was on a permanent basis like Aaron and his sons. (So it appears in my humble opinion. And see Taz, subsection 31, who wrote that therefore the Tur did not bring the distinction of an occasional occurrence, because he was in Ashkenaz where they do not perform nesiat kapayim except on Yom Tov and everything was considered occasional, see there. And his words are puzzling: for is it because of this that the Tur should not write for the sake of the Sefardim? Furthermore: regarding the essence of the matter it is not so, for behold the Rosh fled to Spain with all his sons as is known. And the main point is as I wrote, that the Tur does not distinguish in this. And that which is in Megillah is not specifically a katan, but rather because it deals there with matters of a katan, and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh, see there. Furthermore: for behold the Tur did not mention this custom at all. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And according to this, I say regarding what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote at the end of this siman: A kohen, even if he is unmarried, lifts his hands. And some say that he does not lift his hands, for one who dwells without a wife dwells without joy, and the one who blesses must be in joy. Thus far his words. And they cited this in the name of the Zohar, Parashat Naso, in Raya Mehemna (page 145b), and this is the wording of the Zohar: Because the Shekhinah does not dwell with one who is not married... and because of this it is written: "Speak to Aaron and to his sons...". Thus far his words. And on the surface these are puzzling matters: from where do we have the basis to say so? And furthermore, they raised a difficulty regarding this: but only the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur was forbidden to perform his service without a wife (Magen Avraham, subsection 64). But according to our words, it works out well. And to this the Zohar alluded in what it wrote, "and because of this it is written: Speak to Aaron and to his sons...", meaning: that we require it to be similar to Aaron and his sons, who had wives and also joy—we learn it from there, as it is written: "And all the people saw and they sang for joy." And with this one may also give a correct reason why we do not lift hands except on Yom Tov, because then is a time of joy, because it is written: "Thus shall you bless"—and we require it to be similar to Aaron and his sons on that day, when they lifted their hands on the eighth day of the inauguration, for there was then complete joy.

And know that regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: A minor who has not brought two hairs does not lift his hands. One of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch wrote (Magen Avraham subsection 48), and this is his wording: It implies even if he is thirteen years old, it is forbidden. Therefore, one must be precise in the matter, so that he does not come to a blessing in vain. Thus far his words. And it is implied from this wording that we do not rely on the years as in all Torah laws, for we do not say there is a presumption that he brought signs. And this is a wonder: for what blessing in vain is there? Behold, even a minor lifts his hands with the other kohanim, and the minor recites all the blessings. Furthermore: for according to the opinion of the Tosafot, there is only a rabbinic prohibition in a blessing in vain (Magen Avraham in siman 215), and regarding a rabbinic matter, we certainly rely on the presumption that he brought signs. Therefore, the primary ruling is that when he reaches the age of thirteen years and one day, we presume him to be an adult regarding the lifting of hands in an ordinary case (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 58), unless we know clearly that he did not bring signs. (See Machatzit HaShekel who struggled to explain the words of the Magen Avraham in this way as well, but it is not implied so. And also the Pri Megadim did not understand his intention so, see there. And for the ruling, the primary view is as the Eliyah Rabbah wrote. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter fifteen, law 6: A kohen who did not have any of these matters that prevent the lifting of the hands, even though he is not a scholar and is not meticulous in the mitzvot, or if people were gossiping about him, or if his business dealings were not in righteousness—behold, this one lifts his hands. And we do not prevent him, because this is a positive commandment upon each and every kohen who is fit for the lifting of the hands. And we do not say to a wicked man: "Increase your wickedness and abstain from the mitzvot." And do not wonder and say: What benefit will the blessing of this commoner provide? For the acceptance of the blessing does not depend on the kohanim but rather on the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: "And they shall place My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them"—the kohanim perform the mitzvah they were commanded, and the Holy One, blessed be He, in His mercy, blesses Israel as He desires. Thus far his words. And this is according to Rabbi Akiva in Chullin (49a), that "and I will bless them" refers to Israel, whom the Holy One, blessed be He, blesses; see there. And more than this is found in the Yerushalmi, chapter five of Gittin (halacha 9), and this is its wording: So that you should not say, "Such and such a man is a revealer of forbidden relations and a shedder of blood, and he blesses us." The Holy One, blessed be He, said: And who blesses you? Is it not I who blesses you? As it is said: "And they shall place...", see there.

But the Rambam there previously wrote: A kohen who killed a person, even though he performed teshuvah – he shall not lift his hands, as it is said: "Your hands are full of blood. And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you." And a kohen who served idols, whether intentionally, or unintentionally, or under duress, even though he performed teshuvah – he never lifts his hands, as it is said: "The kohanim of the high places shall not ascend..." And blessing is like service, as it is said: "To serve Him and to bless in His name." And so too a kohen who converted to idolatry, even though he recanted – he never lifts his hands. And other transgressions do not prevent. Thus far his words. And this regarding one who killed a person is in Berakhot (32b). And this regarding idols is at the end of Menachot. And this regarding one who killed a person contradicts the Yerushalmi, and he ruled according to our Talmud. And there is one who says that the Yerushalmi deals only with a suspicion of bloodshed (Beit Yosef). However, Rashi ruled that when he repents – he may ascend to the dukhan (Tur). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 35 that one should be lenient for penitents so as not to lock the door before them. And such is the custom. Thus far his words. And so too wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 37 regarding one who converted, that some say if he performed teshuvah he lifts his hands, and such is the primary ruling. See there. And so too he wrote that if he was under duress – according to all opinions he is permitted to lift his hands. Thus far his words. And it is a wonder: granted that he did not rule like the Rambam, but how did he write "according to all opinions he is permitted"? For behold, the Rambam forbids (and in the Bedek HaBayit he was pressed in this).

If one circumcised an infant and it died—he may lift his hands, for he intended for the mitzvah. Furthermore: perhaps it would have died regardless. Furthermore: perhaps it was a nefel. Furthermore: perhaps the wind disturbed it. We find this reasoning in Gittin (9a) regarding exile, when one killed inadvertently and the victim did not die immediately; see there. Here too, regarding this matter in circumcision. And so too when one killed inadvertently and the victim did not die immediately (Magen Avraham, subsection 52). And so too even if the people murmur after him that he is a shedder of blood, since the matter has not been clarified—he is permitted to lift his hands. However, if he knows that the truth is so, that he shed blood—he shall not lift his hands. But if he performed teshuvah, one should be lenient, so as not to lock the door, as I have written. And an uncircumcised male whose brothers died due to circumcision, some say he is disqualified from the lifting of hands just as for the service of sacrifices (Bach). And some say he is fit (Magen Avraham, subsection 54), for he is not compared for all matters. And perhaps even an intentional uncircumcised male is fit (ibid.), for other transgressions do not prevent it. However, in practice it is difficult to be lenient, for it appears that it is a complete comparison to the service. And such is the opinion of the great later authorities (Taz, subsection 35, and Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 69, and Knesset HaGedolah).

The Rambam wrote in chapter fifteen, law 4: One who drank a revi'it of wine at one time—he may not lift his hands until his wine has left him, because blessing is equated to service. If he drank a revi'it of wine in two instances, or if he put a small amount of water into it—it is permitted. And if he drank more than a revi'it, even though it was diluted, and even though he drank it in several instances—he may not lift his hands until his wine has left him. And how much is a revi'it? Two fingers by two fingers at a height of two fingers, and a half of a finger and a fifth of a finger in thumb-breadths. And this is the finger that is used for measurement in the entire Torah, and it is the thumb, and it is called "bohen yad." Thus far his words. And even if he drank wine from its pit, which is not yet fine wine—he is disqualified just as in service (Magen Avraham end of subsection 55). And some say that this which equated blessing to service is a mere asmakhta (Beit Yosef). And some say that it is a complete hekesh (Taz subsection 35). And the practical difference is regarding other beverages, as will be explained.

And know that other beverages besides wine—in the service it is prohibited by a negative commandment, but there is no death penalty for it as there is with wine. And according to this, regarding nesiat kapayim when one is drunk from other beverages, such as brandy, mead, and beer, some say that it is prohibited just as in the service (Taz ibid.), since it is a complete hekesh. However, in Taanit (27a) it is explicitly stated that it is merely an asmakhta, see there. Therefore, in truth, our teacher Yerucham wrote (brought in the Beit Yosef) that a drunkard specifically when he has reached the drunkenness of Lot—he shall not perform nesiat kapayim. Thus far his words. And his intention refers to other beverages (Perishah). And the explanation of his words: for in Taanit there we learn the prohibition of wine in nesiat kapayim from a nazir, see there. And a nazir is completely permitted other beverages, and in the service as well there is no death penalty for other beverages. Therefore, in nesiat kapayim it is completely permitted; and only when he has reached the drunkenness of Lot, for then he is exempt from all mitzvot, and therefore he should not perform nesiat kapayim (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 55). However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work wrote: even though he also holds that it is merely an asmakhta, nevertheless his opinion is that even without reaching the drunkenness of Lot it is prohibited to ascend the duchen. And it is no less than prayer, as was explained in siman 99 that even without reaching the drunkenness of Lot it is prohibited for him to pray. And so it appears primary for the halakhah. (And the Magen Avraham there disagreed with the Beit Yosef. And his words are not clear to me, see there. And examine closely and you will find it easy.)

It has already been explained that other transgressions do not prevent the nesiat kapayim. And there is one who says that this is specifically when he has performed teshuvah (Magen Avraham, subsection 56, in the name of the Ra'anach). And these are puzzling matters, for it is explicitly explained from the words of the Rambam and the Yerushalmi that we brought that even if he is a rasha now, nevertheless, he may ascend for nesiat kapayim. And one should not hesitate regarding this, for there is no doubt at all in this.

It is a simple matter that a challal does not lift his hands, as he has departed from the sanctity of the priesthood. However, a valid kohen who cohabits with women from the prohibitions of the priesthood has not profaned himself from the priesthood, for he profanes his offspring and not himself. Nevertheless, we learned in Bekhorot (45b): One who marries women in transgression is disqualified until he vows to derive no benefit. And there it deals with the matter of the service of the Beit HaMikdash, but regarding the matter of nesi'at kapayim it is not clarified what the law is. The Rambam and the Tur did not mention this at all. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 40 wrote: A kohen who married a divorcee shall not lift his hands. And one does not practice sanctity toward him even to read first in the Torah. And even if he divorced her or she died, he is disqualified until he vows to derive no benefit, according to the knowledge of the many, from the women who are forbidden to him. Thus far his words. And he explained the reason in his great book: That since the sages penalized him regarding the service, it is obvious that he is disqualified by rabbinic law for all laws of the priesthood until he vows to derive no benefit according to the knowledge of the many. And so wrote the Rashba in a Responsum, see there. And certainly so it is. For it appears to me that regarding this matter it is more stringent in this time than in the time of the Temple, for in the time of the Temple perhaps it was sufficient to penalize him that he should not serve in the Beit HaMikdash. But in this time, if we do not penalize him in nesi'at kapayim and in ascending first to the Torah, with what shall we penalize him? And this we have indeed seen from the Mishnah in Bekhorot, that the sages acted so that they should penalize him.

And in Bekhorot ibid. it was taught in the Mishnah that a kohen who renders himself tamei to the dead is disqualified from the service until he accepts upon himself not to render himself tamei to the dead any longer. And regarding this, our sages, of blessed memory, did not require that he take a vow of prohibition of benefit, for only regarding forbidden relations where his inclination is powerful did they require that he take a vow of prohibition of benefit, and not regarding a transgression for which there is no power of the inclination. And since this is by way of a penalty, therefore in this as well our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 41: If he rendered himself tamei to a corpse that is not one of the seven relatives or a met mitzvah, he is disqualified from the dukhan and from all the privileges of the priesthood, until he repents and accepts that he will not render himself tamei to the dead any longer. Thus far his words. And I am astonished: for from his wording it implies that if he rendered himself tamei only one time he is disqualified, but from the wording of the Mishnah that we cited it implies specifically when he is accustomed to rendering himself tamei and not when he rendered himself tamei one time, for we learned "one who renders himself tamei to the dead" and not "one who renders himself tamei to a corpse." And so it implies explicitly from the wording of the Rambam in the sixth chapter of Biat Mikdash. And similarly regarding women he wrote: A kohen who was marrying women in a forbidden manner—implying that he is accustomed to doing so. But if he did so one time, he divorces her and that is sufficient. And it requires great study, for it seems in my humble opinion that the primary halakhah is as I have written.

And regarding that which he wrote, that he should vow by the consensus of the public, the Rambam likewise wrote in the sixth chapter of Biat Mikdash, see there. And certainly, according to the sugya of the Shas in Bekhorot there and in Gittin (36a), this was only necessary if he does not need to specify the vow, for then we concern ourselves that perhaps he will go to a sage and he will annul the vow. Therefore, he must vow by the consensus of the public, for which there is no annulment. But for us, as we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 228 that one must specify the vow—it is not necessary to vow by the consensus of the public. And many things were said regarding this (see Magen Avraham subsection 58, and Beit Shmuel in Even HaEzer siman 96, and Eliyah Rabbah). And it seems simple to me that certainly, whatever we are able to be stringent upon him—we are stringent. And in the Gemara it is the opposite, for it asks on the Mishnah that we administer a vow to him: and let us concern ourselves that perhaps he will annul it before a sage? And it answers that he must specify... and it asks: this is well... and it answers that we administer the vow by the consensus of the public. That is to say: that then according to everyone it is effective. But it is not clarified: for the one who says one must specify the vow—it is not necessary to vow by the consensus of the public, and why should we not make the greatest reinforcement that can be?

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 41 that there are those who say that one who has a daughter who exchanged her faith for the stars, or who committed an act of zenut—they are no longer obligated to sanctify him, for "she profanes her father." Thus far his words. And they wrote that the essence of his obligation is because of zenut, for he should have guarded her so that she would not be in seclusion with a man. As they said in Ketubot (45a): See the offspring you have raised. Therefore, they stone her at the entrance of her father's house, see there. And they wrote that when she has exchanged her faith—she has certainly committed zenut, for regarding other transgressions, what can the father do (Magen Avraham subsection 62 and Eliyah Rabbah)? And they also wrote that this is only regarding the matter of according him honor to open first in the Torah or at a gathering. However, he may ascend for nesiat kapayim (ibid. and Taz subsection 36). And according to this, I do not know why he wrote it in this siman. And in truth, in his book "Darkei Moshe," he wrote this law in siman 135 regarding the matter of the reading of the Torah, and likewise in the source of the law in the Mordechai, Sanhedrin chapter seven, this is explicit regarding the matter of the reading of the Torah. And it appears to me that in the Shulchan Aruch they mistakenly copied it into this siman, and its place is in siman 135. And we have already written that a chalal does not perform nesiat kapayim. And even a rabbinic chalal, such as if his father married a chalutzah, which is rabbinic. And the details of the laws of a chalal were explained in Even HaEzer siman 7, see there.

An onan is forbidden from lifting his hands, for he is forbidden from service, and lifting the hands is a service (Magen Avraham subsection 64). Furthermore: for he is exempt from all mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. But a mourner during his days of mourning, meaning within the seven days—we have not found that he is exempt from this mitzvah, and therefore it is good that he should leave the beit knesset before the dukhan. However, if they called him—he is obligated to ascend, or if he was in the beit knesset at the time the shaliach tzibbur said "Kohanim." And even on Shabbat he should leave the beit knesset. And some say that on Shabbat he should ascend to the dukhan and fulfill the positive commandment (Pri Chadash). And it appears that if there is no other kohen there but him—certainly he must ascend. (See Magen Avraham subsection 65, and it requires further study. And also the language is garbled, see there.)

However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 43 that there are those who say that during the entire period of mourning, even up to twelve months for one's father or mother – he does not lift his hands. And such is the custom in these lands. Thus far his words. And for other relatives, until thirty days. And certainly this custom is puzzling. For this is included in the general custom practiced in his land, not to ascend the duchan the entire year, as will be explained. And there is no correct reason for this except for what we explained in section 49 according to the words of the Zohar, see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 44: A kohen, even though he is unmarried – lifts his hands. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who say he does not lift his hands, for one who dwells without a wife dwells without joy. And the one who blesses must be in joy. But they practiced that he lifts his hands even though he is not married. Nevertheless, one who wishes not to lift his hands – they do not protest against him, provided that he is not in the beit knesset at the time they call "Kohanim" or tell them to wash their hands. Thus far his words. For if they called them to ascend, or if they were present at the time of saying "Kohanim" – they violate a positive commandment when they do not ascend. And this too is among the puzzling matters, and we explained it there in section 49. However, our custom is that the unmarried kohanim ascend the duchan, and particularly since with us it is a beloved mitzvah only on Yom Tov. And it is very correct.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: It is the custom in all these provinces that they do not lift their hands except on a Yom Tov, because then they are immersed in the joy of the Yom Tov, and "he who is of a good heart shall bless." This is not the case on other days, even on the Sabbaths of the year, when they are preoccupied with thoughts of their livelihood and the cessation of their work. And even on Yom Tov, they do not lift their hands except during the Musaf prayer, for they then depart from the synagogue and will rejoice in the joy of the Yom Tov. And every Shacharit and Musaf in which they do not lift their hands, the shaliach tzibbur says "Our God and God of our fathers" as above in siman 127. And on Yom Kippur they lift their hands as on a Yom Tov (even though it does not have the joy of eating and drinking). And there are places where they lift their hands during Neilah, and there are places even during Shacharit. Thus far his words. And this is due to the essential sanctity of this holy day.

And behold, there is certainly no correct reason for our custom to nullify the positive commandment of birkat kohanim the entire year. And they wrote that it is a poor custom. But what can we do when it is as if a heavenly voice went out to not allow us to perform nesiat kapayim the entire year? And I have a tradition that two of the giants of the generation in previous generations, each in his own place, wanted to establish nesiat kapayim every day. And when they set a specific day for this, the matter became confused and did not succeed for them. And they said that it is seen that it was so decreed from Heaven. And from the perspective of the law, it may be said according to what I wrote in section 49 based on the Zohar, that we require joy similar to Aaron and his sons on the eighth day of the inauguration. And regarding this it is said: "So shall you bless." However, that which was the custom of old that on a Yom Tov that fell on Shabbat they would not perform nesiat kapayim – it has already been nullified in our days, for there is no reason or sense in this custom, as the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch have elaborated on this (Taz, subsection 37, and Magen Avraham, subsection 70). And a ba'al keri is permitted in nesiat kapayim (Beit Yosef). And one who is stringent to immerse, may a blessing come upon him. However, in Eretz Yisrael and in Egypt and in all of Asia, the kohanim perform nesiat kapayim every day.

These are the places where the kohanim turn: to the south and to the north. That is to say: they incline their faces there, so that the blessing shall spread to all sides (Eliyah Rabbah). And these are they: "Yevarekhekha," "Veyishmerekha," "Elekha," "Viyhunneka," "Elekha," "Lekha," "Shalom." Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 45: And it is the custom that they extend the melody of these words, for each of them is the end of a blessing in its own right. Thus far his words, that is to say: that in the birkat kohanim there are six blessings, as Rashi explained in the Chumash. And these are they: "Yevarekhekha" is one blessing. "Veyishmerekha" is the second. "Elekha," which is the end of the blessing of "Ya'er," is the third. "Viyhunneka" is the fourth. "Elekha" of "Yissa" is the end of the blessing of "Yissa" and it is the fifth. And "Lekha Shalom" is the sixth. Therefore, even "Yevarekhekha" is called the end of a blessing, since it is a blessing in its own right. And "Elekha" of "Viyhunneka" is the end of a blessing, for "Ya'er" and "Elekha" of "Yissa" is the end of a blessing, for "Yissa" and "Lekha Shalom" is one blessing (and the difficulty of the Magen Avraham in subsection 72 is settled). And they say the "Ribbono shel Olam" as I wrote in siman 130. And when do they say this? At the time when the kohanim extend the melodies at the ends of the verses: "Veyishmerekha," "Viyhunneka," "Shalom." However, not during the saying of the words, but rather when the sheliach tzibbur finishes "Veyishmerekha" they sing, and the public says "Ribbono shel Olam." And when they finish, the kohanim say "Veyishmerekha." And so too with "Viyhunneka," and so too with "Shalom." And the prompter, that is the sheliach tzibbur—shall not say the "Ribbono shel Olam," for it is forbidden for him to interrupt. Rather, he stands and remains silent. (See Magen Avraham subsection 73, for it is implied from his words that the kohanim sing within the word itself at its end. And such is not the custom among us.) (And also if another prompts—he shall not say "Ribbon.")

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman: It is forbidden to make use of a kohen even in this time, for it is like one who commits me'ilah against sacred property, unless he waived this. Thus far his words. And ostensibly it is not understood: for if it is like one who commits me'ilah against sacred property, what does waiving accomplish? Therefore, we must clarify this law, which the Rishonim and Acharonim have struggled with. And the source of the law is from the Yerushalmi, the eighth chapter of Berakhot (halacha 5), and thus it is stated there: That Rabbah bar bar Chanah and Rav Huna were sitting and eating, and Rabbi Zeira was standing and serving them. And he extended to them a cup and oil in one hand. And Beit Hillel say there that one takes the oil in his right and the cup in his left. And Rabbah bar bar Chanah said to Rabbi Zeira: Is your other hand severed, that you brought them in your one hand? And the father of Rabbah bar bar Chanah became angry with him, and said to him: Is it not enough for you that you are sitting, and he is standing and serving? And furthermore, that Rabbi Zeira is a kohen, and Shmuel said: One who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah. Rather, you even degrade him? Therefore, I decree that you shall stand and Rabbi Zeira shall sit, and you shall serve him. And from where do we know that one who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah? Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Shmuel, as it is written in Ezra (8:28) when he delivered to the kohanim silver and gold and vessels for the Beit HaMikdash, Ezra said: "You are holy to Hashem, and the vessels are holy." Just as with vessels, one who makes use of them commits me'ilah – so too one who makes use of kohanim commits me'ilah. Thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi. And one must examine: for if so, why was the father of Rabbah bar bar Chanah silent until he degraded him, and did not protest that Rabbi Zeira was serving before them?

In the Hagahot Maimoniyot, the third chapter of Laws of Servants, regarding the law that a priest's servant is not bored [with an awl], but it is permitted to sell him as a Hebrew servant, he wrote that from this it is implied that the service of a priest is permitted. And this is difficult from that Yerushalmi which states that one who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah. And he remained with this difficulty, see there. And it is a wonder: what was difficult for him? For from this very Yerushalmi itself it is proven that it is permitted, for behold, Rava Zeira served before them. And the Semag, in Positive Commandment 83 regarding the law of a Hebrew servant, answered this, and this is the wording of the Semag: From here there is proof that even though it says in the Yerushalmi of Berakhot that one who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah, nevertheless, for payment it is permitted to utilize him. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: does a Hebrew servant then take payment? For behold, he is sold for his theft. And in the Mordechai on Gittin in the Hagahot, he brought (see Taz subsection 39) an incident involving a priest who poured water on the hands of our teacher, the Tam. And a certain student raised a difficulty: Behold, we learned in the Yerushalmi that one who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah? And our teacher, the Tam, replied: There is no sanctity in this time, for we hold that when their garments are upon them—their sanctity is upon them. And if not—no. And the student raised a difficulty: If so, should we not perform any types of sanctity for them? And our teacher, the Tam, remained silent. And our teacher, Peter, replied that granted that there is sanctity in him—he is able to waive it, as we say: a priest's servant is not bored because he becomes a person with a blemish. And were it not for this reason, he would be able to utilize him. Thus far his words. And the answer of our teacher, the Tam, is not understood at all. And how could he say that there is no sanctity in this time? For behold, the incident of the Yerushalmi was in this time, in the time of the Amoraim.

Indeed, the clarification of the matters is as follows: that the Torah sanctified the kohanim for the service of the Beit HaMikdash, and called them "holy," as it is written: "They shall be holy unto their God…, for the fire-offerings of Hashem they offer, and they shall be holy…". And the Holy One, Blessed be He, also commanded us that we should sanctify them, as it is written: "And you shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God; he shall be holy to you…". And this is a commandment that we should sanctify them. And it requires explanation: for it is well understood that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sanctified them so that they should serve in the Mikdash, and that they should not marry divorced women or harlots. But we—is it in our hands to sanctify them? Rather, its meaning is that you shall honor him as a holy thing. And regarding this the sages said in Gittin (59b): "And you shall sanctify him" for every matter of holiness: to open first, and to bless first, and to take a choice portion first. That is to say: that he should be honored by you. And according to this, the matter is clear: that in what the Holy One, Blessed be He, sanctified them, they have no power to change, and the matter is not dependent on their will, for it is a decree of the King. But in what we must sanctify them, that is to say, to honor them—surely it is in their hands to forgo, for even a teacher who forgives his honor—his honor is forgiven. Therefore, in every matter he can forgo, and only regarding the reading of the Torah to bless first did the sages enact that he cannot forgo, because of the ways of peace. And it will be explained in siman 135. And know that the term "me'ilah" is not specifically regarding the obligation of a me'ilah sacrifice. And every transgression is called "me'ilah," as it is written: "And they acted treacherously (vaim'alu) against the God of their fathers." And Onkelos translated "me'ilah" as an expression of falsehood, see there. And so it is written: "To commit a treachery (lim'ol ma'al) against Hashem regarding the matter of Peor." And we learned explicitly in Me'ilah (18a): There is no "me'ilah" but change. And so it is in Numbers 5:12: "If any man's wife goes astray, and acts treacherously (u-ma'alah) against him." And so it says: "And they acted treacherously…", see there. For anyone who does a thing against the Torah is called a "treacherous actor" (mo'el). And with this everything is settled well, as we will explain with the help of Heaven.

For when Rabbi Zeira served Raba bar bar Hana and Rav Chanan of his own free will, the father of Raba bar bar Hana had no reason to complain. However, when Raba bar bar Hana rebuked him for not serving him properly and offended his honor, it appeared as if he were compelled to serve him, and therefore his father became angry and said to him: Is it not enough for you that you sit and he stands and serves? Which is to say: that he accords you honor. And furthermore, he is a kohen and waived the honor of his priesthood. But you further disparage him, and it turns out that you are forcing him to serve you, and one who makes use of the priesthood has committed me'ilah. Which is to say: one who makes use of a kohen against the kohen's will commits a transgression, for he alters the sanctity of Heaven, as the Torah commanded "And you shall sanctify him" and you disparage him. And Shmuel said: From that which Ezra said, "You are holy and the vessels are holy" – just as one who makes use of vessels without permission has committed me'ilah, so too one who makes use of kohanim without permission has committed me'ilah. Which is to say: he commits a transgression.

And according to this, the author of the Hagahot Maimoniyot rightly raises a difficulty, for behold, one sells a Hebrew slave on account of his theft, and the sale is against his will, as is understood. And behold, does one who makes use of the priesthood against his will not commit a violation of me'ilah? However, the SeMag answered that for a wage it is permitted to make use of him. That is to say: for if he hired himself out of his own will it is permitted, as he waives his honor. And if so, the will of the Torah should not be less than his own will, for the Torah hired him out so that he may pay for his theft. And he is compelled to accept upon himself the will of the Torah, such that he says "I am willing." And they coerce him until he says "I am willing," as in the cases of bills of divorce and sacrifices, as is known.

And our teacher Tam holds this way, that the essence of their sanctity is at the time they wear the priestly garments. And we say explicitly in Zevachim (17b): "'And you shall gird them with a belt... and the priesthood shall be theirs for a perpetual statute,' at the time their garments are upon them—their priesthood is upon them; if their garments are not upon them—their priesthood is not upon them." However, according to this, why did they say "and you shall sanctify him"? To open first... and behold, their garments are not upon them. Therefore, our teacher Tam holds that at the time their garments are upon them—their sanctity is not in their hands, and they cannot forgo it. But at the time their garments are not upon them—their sanctity is in their hands, and they can forgo it. And this is what our teacher Tam hinted to him in his response. And the student did not understand until our teacher Peter explained it to him. And the intention of our teacher Tam was that since when their garments are not upon them they can forgo it, and especially since it is an honor to serve a great man like our teacher Tam, and it is understood that it was not fitting for our teacher Tam to say so himself; therefore, he hinted to him that specifically when their garments are upon them his forgoing is not effective, but now it is effective. And the student did not understand until R.P. explained it to him.

And according to this, the law is clear: that a kohen may serve and attend according to his will. This is unlike the one who says that when the kohen derives no benefit, it is forbidden, and his waiver is of no effect (Taz, end of subsection 39). And they have already refuted him (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 90, and Ba'er Heiteiv, subsection 83). Similarly, it does not appear correct in my humble opinion, the one who wrote that it is permitted to make use of an am ha'aretz kohen (Mishneh LaMelekh, ibid.), for did the Torah distinguish between an am ha'aretz and a talmid chakham? Behold, it is explained below in siman 135 that the simple custom is that even an am ha'aretz kohen precedes a great Yisrael sage in reading first; see there. Similarly, there is one who wrote to be lenient because nowadays there are no kohanim of verified lineage. Heaven forbid to say such a thing and to cast aspersions on the sanctity of kohanim. They have already cried out against this like a crane (Keneset HaGedolah, end of siman 56). And the essence of the law is this: that without the kohen's will, it is forbidden to make use of him, but with his will, it is permitted. And it appears to me that it is also forbidden for a kohen to make use of a kohen. Or perhaps "and you shall sanctify him" is only incumbent upon a Yisrael, and all that our sages, of blessed memory, reckoned within "and you shall sanctify him" to open first... is not applicable from kohen to kohen. And this requires further study for the practical law. And there is also doubt whether it is permitted to make use of a kohen with a blemish, since he is not fit for the service, and we do not read regarding him "for he offers the bread of your God." And so appears to be the primary view.