The Rama in Even Ha'ezer siman 3 writes that "(some people say that now in days) if someone says he's a cohen we can believe him and let him do birchat cohanim etc." This needs to be well thought through because the Ramach (who this Rama is based on) only says that a cohen is believed in regards to allowing him to receive the first aliyah because why do we care if he's not actually a cohen and reads the first aliyah. And even on this, the Beis Yosef brings halachik authorities who argue! (So if even by giving him this aliyah there's an argument, for sure) by allowing him to do birchat cohanim no one would allow him to validate himself as a cohen because (if he's not a cohen) he would violate a positive commandment (of only a cohen being allowed to do birchat cohanim). See what I say in siman 208 [Magen Avraham says there "even a cohen getting the first aliyah is a biblical commandment." He either intends by quoting what he says there, to disagree on the Ramach even in regards to believing him to give him the first aliyah because both birchat cohen and first aliyah are biblical commandments, so can't risk a violation or he is just pointing out that even though it is biblical for him to have the first aliyah, it's different than believing him to do birchat cohanim because a cohen can relinquish his right to the first aliyah (so even if he's not a cohen the other cohanim relinquish there precedence and he doesn't violate anything) but the other cohanim can't relinquish there rights to allow him to do birchat cohanim). The Rama said (see there where he quotes Tosafot and resolves a question by saying) "it's possible if there's other cohanim present a yisroel doesn't violate a biblical commandment by doing birchat cohanim and Tosafot in Mesechta Shabbot is saying he doesn't know what prohibition it would be for a yisroel to do birchat cohanim since there are other cohanim doing it with him. The Gemara in Ketuvot which said there is a prohibition is when a non cohen says it alone." This needs to be well thought through because where would Tosafot know to make such a distinction (of whether a yisroel is saying it with other cohanim)! (Magen Avraham now gives an alternative explanation which is not like the Rama.) It's possible that Tosafot understood the prohibition of a yisroel to say birchat cohanim is saying Hashems name in vain (since he's not a cohen he's saying Hashems name in vain because he's not the one who was told to say it.) [So Tosafot should be read as saying "The R"I didn't know what the basis for a prohibition on a non cohen saying birchat cohanim would be (even though the Gemara said there's a prohibition, I don't know where it would come from.) Maybe (the prohibition is that) it's considered saying Hashems name in vain since he's not commanded to say it." (Tosafot would be disagreeing with Rashi who learnt the basis for the prohibition comes from the implication of Hashem telling specifically the cohanim to give the blessing, implying to not say if your not a cohen.)] See siman 215 (There it's clear the prohibition of saying Hashems name is violating a prohibition. So Tosafots explanation doesn't work with the Gemara which said for a non cohen to do birchat cohanim it would be violating a positive commandment, according to him its violating a negative commandment). If Tosafot wouldn't have commented I would've resolved that Gemara differently (Tosafot understood that Rabbi Yossi actually said birchat cohanim even though he didn't think he was a cohen, the Magen Avraham explains differently). I think that Rabbi Yossi was saying he would go up with the cohanim to the platform (where the cohanim would be saying birchat cohanim but he wouldn't actually say birchat cohanim. So Rabbi Yossi is saying I would follow my friends opinions against my own) even though it would be disgraceful for me (he would just be standing there quietly when the cohanim said birchat cohanim). Rabbi Yossi would not actually say birchat cohanim. See the Beis Shmuel and Rav Shmuel Idlashs commentary. Another explanation (of why Tosafot said he doesn't know what the prohibition of a non cohen doing birchat cohanim would be despite the Gemara seemingly saying what it is) could be that in the first perek of Eruvin Rabbi Yossi says "even though the pasuk said Bnie (lit. sons) of yisroel must lean (on the animal when bringing a sacrifice)," implying woman don't do this. Nevertheless if they'd like to they can." So he'd say the same thing here! Even though the verse said cohanim should give the beracha (implying not someone who's not a cohen), if a non cohen would like to he can give as well. So Tosafot therefore says "I don't know what the prohibition would be for a non cohen to do birchat cohanim" because that Gemara in Ketuvot which says there's a prohibition is only according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds can validate someone as a cohen based on them eating terumah, see the end of the perek there (the Gemara only said it's a prohibition for a non cohen to say birchat cohanim when it was discussing the person who says can validate someone as a cohen based on him eating terumah, which is Rabbi Yehudas opinion). And according to Rabbi Yehuda woman can't lean on there sacrifices like it's brought in Eruvin (from the implication of "bnie (sons)" and not daughters. He argues on Rabbi Yossi who said woman can lean.) Therefore according to Rabbi Yehuda a non cohen who does birchat cohanim would also violate a positive commandment (as it says cohanim do Birchat cohanim implying not a non cohen). This seems to me to be the correct explanation of Tosafot (he's dealing with what the basis of the prohibition according to Rabbi Yossi would be), see there.

2.He only violates a commandment when he uprooted his feet (to begin going to the platform to say birchat cohanim) at ritzie or was told before ritzie to go up but if he didn't uproot his feet to go up (to the platform) he is not permitted to go up (and since he can't say birchat cohanim he wouldn't violate anything by not saying it.) This is also implied from siman 8 (Shulchan Aruch says not to go up if didn't begin to go up at ritzie) and also implied from the Ran (he says "cohen only violates a commandment if he was told to go up," so if I can't go up anymore since it's after ritzie, not calling me up shouldn't change anything.) Also see siman 20 (he seems to be quoting the Rama who makes an application of this halacha to say "when we say a cohen who's a chazan doesn't say birchat cohanim it's only if he wasn't called up. If he was called he'd violate a commandment by not saying.")

If a cohen says birchat cohanim twice in one day he still makes a beracha even if he's saying it with the same congregation (Ram Mintz siman 12, 32):

The Mordechie writes that "the cohanim should leave before the chazan begins to say ritzie." I think he says this because we don't want people to think, when he doesn't begin to go up at ritzie, that it's because he's blemished. See the Beis Yosef at the end of this siman (Beis Yosef says to not violate the commandment of saying birchat cohanim, just need to be outside when they call out for the cohanim to go up. Being outside until after there completely done is just because of a concern for people not to think your not going up because your blemished.): The Bach writes that "those who are disqualified from being a cohen based on a rabbinic law do not need to leave the shul because the chazan isn't calling for them to go up when says "cohanim" (and therefore they don't violate the commandment by not going up.)" The Bach implies that if the chazan would tell them to go up they would violate a positive commandment if they don't go up. However the Shulchan Aruch on siman 2 implied if one has something disqualifying him from saying birchat cohanim he doesn't violate a commandment even if the chazan calls for him (because he said only people not disqualified violate it.) I think the Shulchan Aruch is right because he's only not going up because the Rabbi's prohibited him from doing so and they are capable of making such a prohibition like it's brought in siman 191 (there it's brought that they similarly shortened a workers benching to not loose time working. They could do this despite benching being biblical. So to they could tell someone not to do birchat cohanim despite being biblical. So since the Rabbis told him not to go up he would not violate anything by not going up, unlike what the Bach said.)

5. I think that this is only when they only reach ones knees and are tied with a strap or tape but if they reach ones elbows (when his hands are down which is around ones waist) they are pants and are permitted to wear (the stringency brought in the Rama is based on that if we permit one to wear this he will come to think he can wear shoes as well, which is prohibited. So if they are so high, one will not mix them u with shoes.) I think if they are a garment and covered with hide it's always permitted. See what I say in siman 554 sief 16 (on Tisha Ba'av can't wear leather and Magen Avraham prohibits even if just covering. The difference is that on Tisha Ba'av the prohibition is based on mourning so wearing leather is violating that even if there on top of ones garment. But for birchat cohanim it's just based on worrying one will think it's ok to go up with shoes but won't make that mix up if it's a garment.)

The Custom in Egypt is (for birchat cohanim) by Shacharit not to wash ones hands and by Mussaf to wash ones hands because by then they have stopped actively watching over them (Radvaz chelek 1, 147):

7. If there's not a Levi present have a first born, who is the first to leave a mothers womb and therefore holy, wash the cohens hands (Bach from Mahri Molin). Its implied from how he phrased it that only a firstborn from the mother ("first to leave mothers womb") but we don't find the firstborn of a father has any holiness now in days. If the Levi is a wise (Torah scholar) and the Cohanim are ignorant (in Torah), then the Levi doesn't need to wash there hands, they should wash on there own [R"I Levi siman 39 as well as the Rosh siman 41]. The R"L Siruel argues [Kenneset Hagedolah]. However if there's some of the Cohanim are students of wisdom (in Torah) then the Levi should wash all there hands (even those who are ignorant in Torah). [this is brought over there].

8. However if he touched a dirty place it's proper to wash his hands [Bach]. See siman 92 sief 6 (says there that "if during tefillah one touches a dirty place he may use dirt, rocks or the wall to clean them." So presumably the same thing should be true here and you don't have to actually wash them. Over there, only if you touched a dirty place when your davening do you not have to use water but before davening you have to go up to a certain distance for water. It's unclear if the Magen Avraham is not making that distinction here and birchat cohanim is less stringent than shemonah esrie so never need to use water if touched a dirty place or if he is quoting there to apply the exact same halachot and over here only don't need water where you touched a dirty place during/right before birchat cohanim.) One is prohibited ON Yom Tov from putting anything inside the water in order for it to attain a scent based on the prohibited of "creating a scent" like it says in siman 511. Its possible that another reason one can't do this is because we need the water to be unchanged like it says in siman 160 (there says "can't use water which appearance changed," here presumably only the smell is different. So that's why Magen Avraham says "it's possible" because it's not a perfect comparison.) Another requirement here is for the water to be poured through "the strength of a person similar to the requirement for cohanim doing there service in the temple. See siman 4.

9. It's troublesome why the Shulchan Aruch added "if he made a beracha in the morning" Obviously that's what were talking about because if he didn't make a beracha in the morning, he would for sure make a beracha when he washes later even if he wasn't doing birchat Cohanim! So the Shulchan Aruch should have just said "the cohen doesn't make a beracha by Shacharit" (and I'd know it's specifically when already made a beracha in the morning?) It's possible that his intent is to say it's only when he's hands are clean, he didn't touch a dirty place, does he not need to make a beracha again but if he did touch a dirty place he would have to make a beracha (before birchat cohanim. So that's why the Shulchan Aruch emphasized "you made a beracha on the morning washing," because your relying on that washing to not make a beracha now and if you touched a dirty place and therefore can't rely on it, you would make a beracha. And the reasoning for this would be) because the Tur and Rashi both write that "there's a requirement of washing right before the beracha (of birchat Cohanim)," Even though in another place Rashi writes differently, Tosafot said, this is a quote from Tosafot not the Beis Yosef like the Bach says, that "that Rashi was written by a student who made a mistake." (So Rashi and the Tur both hold need to wash and) even the Rambam doesn't seem to give any implication that he disagrees with this. Actually from a simple reading, the Rambam seems to say the cohen does need to wash his hands even if he already washed them in the morning. Nevertheless (despite the Tur, Rashi and the Rambam) it's the custom of some places to not wash for birchat Cohanim once washed by Shacharit which has a basis from what the Beis Yosef points out that cohanim in the Temple if they washed there hands in the morning didn't have to wash during there service throughout the day (so to cohanim doing birchat cohanim don't have to wash if they washed in the morning.) However if one touched a dirty place everyone agrees (even those with the custom generally not to, which has a basis) that one washes because the Gemara said this washing is obligated for the cohanim to do (so true, if one didn't touch a dirty place he can say he's fulfilling his obligation of washing through relying on his morning washing but once touched a dirty place and can't say he's relying on his morning one, he's obligated to wash and should make a beracha since fulfilling his obligation! So the Shulchan Aruch might be following this view, that only make a beracha if touched a dirty place as everyone agrees to make a beracha in that scenario.) But what can I do as the peoples custom is to never make the beracha (even if touched a dirty place.) Therefore I think that every Cohen who has fear and a trembling (from Hashem) should watch over his hands to make sure he doesn't touch anything from the time he washed in the morning (that way not making a beracha has some basis as the Beis Yosef brought similar to the priests in the temple.) It's prohibited from waiting the amount of time it takes to walk 22 amot between ones washing and the beracha (Tosafot) Therefore one should wash close to ritzie and the chazan should not be lengthy at retzie (to get to birchat cohanim within that time span.)

10. He doesn't go up even if he wasn't able to go up previously due to some accident (out of his control) however if he goes up he doesn't come back down [Radvaz chelek 2, 516]. Uprooting oneself from his house to go to shul is not called "uprooting himself" (and therefore if he left from his house to go to shul and arrived after ritzie he can't go up to say birchat cohanim.) [also brought there]. I think that if ones house is close to the shul and he leave from his house in order to go there it is called "uprooting himself (and therefore he can say birchat cohanim even if he arrived after ritzie.) [Kenneset Hagedolah].

11. Rashi, the Ran and Tosafot all write that "the cohanim should not say the ihi ratzon (brought by the Shulchan Aruch) until they reach the platfom (where there saying birchat cohanim.) However the Tur and the Rambam write the Gemaras version ("when the cohen uproots himself to go up he says the ihi ratzon" implying before the cohen reaches the platform he says it.) [Beis Yosef]. I think that this (saying the ihi ratzon before they reached the platform) was only in there times where they'd begin to go up at ritzie, saying modim deraban as they walked, and then afterwards they'd say the ihi ratzon (either also as they were walking or once reached the platform.) However now that the cohanim are standing at the platform once the chazan begins ritzie, obviously they must first say modim derabanan and then the ihi ratzon in order to finish it with the chazan like I say later [in next Magen Avraham he says "the Cohanim continue saying the ihi ratzon until the chazan reaches the end of the beracha so that way the congregation would respond "amen" on both the chazans beracha as well as there ihi ratzon." Based on this we need them to say the ihi ratzon after they say modim derabanan (so they finish with the chazans beracha and congregation can say "amen" on it. So since now in days they are at the platform before modim, they can't say the ihi ratzon when there walking to the platform because they haven't said modim derabanan yet!)]

12. The wording of the Shulchan Aruch isn't precise because really the cohanim say this tefillah until the chazan says "ulicha na'eh lihodot." And they do this in order for the congregation to be answering "amen" on both of them (the chazans beracha and their beracha.)

13. If one of the two cohanim is a minor, the chazan doesn't say "cohanim" [Mabit siman 64]. Two cohanim who hate each other are permitted to go up together (this point is either obvious and he's just leading into the next point or he wants to say despite the fact that there's an idea for the cohanim to give the beracha with love and joy see Rama on sief 42) and one can not say to the other "you go up by shacharit and I'll go up by mussaf" or vice versa, because the cohen being told this can say I want to make the beracha together/with two people (RM"M siman 12.)

14. Only the chazan says what the Rama brings not the congregation [Lechem Chamudot]. This is also implied by the Hagoas Maimonedes and is against the Levush.

15. Even if the Hechel (the ark) is on a different side, the Cohanim should face the chazan (The R"SH here in responsa B"Y). I have seen in Constantine that the Hechel in some shuls is in the north and the Cohanim stand there. And also in many places when there's a lot of Cohanim, they end up getting divided some on the north side and others being on the south side. There's also some places where the Hechel is against the east wall but the tevah (bimah/bema) is facing a different direction. It then turns out that the Cohanim are not facing towards the chazan (Kenneset Hagedolah.)

16. Even though if there's only one cohen he's not obligated to go up, he still makes the beracha like it/I say in siman 2 [RM"M siman 12]. If there's one cohen he's rabbinically obligated to go up [Tosafot in Minachot daf 44a (brings Rabbeinu Tam who says he's rabbinically obligated however) see the Tur (Tur holds even one person is obligated seemingly even on a biblical level): (The Beis Yosef understands the Tur and Tosafot to be arguing only when the single cohen was called to do birchat cohanim but otherwise for sure not obligated at all (like we said in sief 2 only have to go up if present when called.) The Taz understands the argument to even be where the single cohen was not called up.]

17. All the Cohanim make the beracha. It should not be one cohen making the beracha and the rest answering "amen" because they'll get thrown off (Mabit chelek 1, 180.)

18. I think saying "with love" (which is a strange addition as where do we find the cohanim are "commanded to do this with love" as is stated in there beracha) is based on the Zohar which says "any Cohen who is not merciful (i.e. loved) to the nation (Jewish people) or the nation isn't merciful to him doesn't do birchat Cohanim."

19. The Mahril says even though the right hand is slightly more raised (than the left) nevertheless one must be careful to put the right hands finger on his left hand in order to not break the "window" because we need five "windows (as Shulchan Aruch says.") The Hagoas Maimonedes writes that between each word (in birchat cohanim) the cohen may bring his thumbs close to this one and that one (he can bring his thumbs on each hand close to each finger if he's tired of holding them apart.) In the Zohar it's brought "not to have any finger touch any other finger" but the custom is not like this. The Rabbeinu Behya writes on the verse (Shemos 17:12) "his hands were faithful," as follows. The rule of the Cohanim is to have the four letter name of Hashem be impressed on there fingers before they do birchat Cohanim (See his commentary there for a more extensive explanation of what the cohanim do and for that matter what Moshe Rabbeinu was doing during there fight against Amelek, where this verse is stated).

20. (even though there's a debate in whether the chazan should say "yivarechecha" that's only a question when he already called them up) but if there's only one Cohen who goes up, where in such a case he just goes up on his own, everyone agrees the chazan says "yivorechecha" (and the cohen responds accordingly.) [R"M Mintz siman 12].

21. If these qualifications aren't fulfilled they did not fulfill there obligation (of Birchat Cohanim. Presumably they have to repeat it because otherwise they will have violated a positive commandment.) [Kenneset Hagedolah]

22. I think that the congregation is permitted to sit as long as there face is facing the cohanim because the congregation has to be face to face with the cohanim. This is also implied inn the Zohar Parashat Nasso see 228.

23. In the best of voices which is not to loud or to quiet but just average (Tur.)

24. On Rosh Hashana and Yom Hakippur where their lengthening it through singing the cohenim shouldn't begin to say "ribon..." until the chazans close to finishing in order to finish at the same time as the congregation.

25. This means he should turn to his right. Which means if he was facing the east, he should turn so he's facing the south and then continue turning until he's facing the west. Similarly if he's facing the west, he should turn until he's facing north and continue turning until he's facing the east. This is not like how some commentators explain it. They say one should do the opposite of how explained and turn to his left which would come out that he's turning himself with his right side (they hold the Gemara doesn't mean turn towards your right but rather turn WITH your right side i.e. push your right side forward therefore turning left). This explanation is a mistake (Beis Yosef.) This is also the custom (Bach says this that the custom is like Beis Yosef to turn towards your right and it's arguing with the Levush.) The Sefer Yimin Hashem Romema wrote a lot on this previous topic: When the Cohanim leave the platform they should turn there faces a little towards the Hechel like a student leaving his master. See end of siman 132 (that this should be done also when one is leaving the shul) and Mesechta Yoma daf 36a (says there the Cohen Gadol when leaving the holy of holies as well as when the cohanim, Levi'im and yisroel left there services in the temple, they wouldn't leave with there backs turned but rather would leave with there faces slightly turned.)

26. I think even if his shoes are clean he must wash them like it says in siman 4 sief 18 (Shulchan Aruch brings various things one must wash his hands for and one is if he removes his shoes.) See siman 92 sief 6 (Shulchan Aruch says "if someone is davening and touches a dirty place he can use rocks, dirt or a wall to clean his hands and doesn't need to wash them." So Magen Avraham seems to be saying also here even if touched his shoes during birchat Cohanim, he can use those methods of cleaning.)

27. This is not similar to siman 167 sief 16 where we say (someone making hamotzie for other people has to wait for the majority of the people present to respond "amen" before cutting the bread but) he does not have to wait for the (few) people who are dragging out the word "amen" more than necessary (so why here do the Cohanim have to wait for the ENTIRE congregation) because by birchat cohanim the entire congregation has to hear the beracha so therefore have to wait (in other words, the Rabbis say "the congregation has to listen to birchat cohanim because it's not appropriate for a master to be blessing a servant and for the servant to not be paying attention." So because of this concern, the cohanim can't continue the beracha until everyone's finished in order for them to all be being quiet when there saying the beracha. By making hamotzie for other people this concern of having them be quiet doesn't exist.) (Tosafot)

28. The Bach asks (why does the Rama say the cohanim wait for the congregation to have responded "amen" to birchat cohanim before they begin to say "ribon..." They have to wait a bit longer) There not allowed to begin (to say "ribon..." until the chazan starts "sim shalom," like Shulchan Aruch says in sief 15? You can't answer that (sometimes sim shalom will be being said before the congregation finished saying "amen," for example) if there's a few people dragging out there "amen" and the chazan began "sima shalom" (before they finished. On this the Rama has to tell us) that the cohanim must wait for those few people (before beginning to say ribon.) This can't be the correct explanation because (in such a scenario where there's a few people dragging out there "amen,") the Halacha would be the opposite of what we just said! The chazan would have to wait for them to all finish saying "amen," in order for them to hear him make the next beracha like I said in siman 124 sief 9 (that for a beracha the congregation are obligated to hear, the chazan must even wait for the people who are lengthening there amen), while the cohanim would not have to wait for them because why should they care about those people (they can start saying "ribon..." before those people finished because the congregation is not obligated to hear it.) So I think the answer to the Beis Yosefs question (the Ramas Halacha is based how the Beis Yosef resolves a question he had. The Gemara in Sotah daf 39 says "the cohanim don't say the beracha until the congregation finished saying amen." Question is, the chazan says each word of birchat cohanim to them before they say it. So shouldn't the Gemara focus on the chazan, that he shouldn't begin to say the next word until the congregation finishes amen? Beis Yosef in one answer says "Gemara is talking about the response to the last word of the beracha. So the cohanim have to wait for the congregation to finish amen before they begin to say ribon." So Rama quotes this answer to be the Halacha. But the Bach explained how it doesn't really answer the question! So Magen Avraham suggests a different answer, he thinks the Gemara is saying) if the congregation is dragging out there amen, the chazan doesn't need to wait for those individuals because were not concerned about them not being able to hear him. The cohanim on the other hand do have to wait like I said before (that since everyone has to be quiet when there making the beracha, they can't start until every ones done.) This distinction (between the chazan and the cohanim in needing to wait) is actually evident from the Shulchan Aruch. Because in Sief 18 he says the chazan has to wait "until the congregation finishes amen," but by for the Cohanim he adds that they have to wait for the ENTIRE congregation to finish amen.

29. The reason for this is because we don't want him to get thrown off (if he goes from saying to the beracha to saying amen and then has to go back to saying the beracha) and not know which beracha he should read next. However there is not a concern responding "amen" being an interruption in his davening because it's considered something necessary to do during tefillah (Tosafot.) See siman 104 sief 7 (there Shulchan Aruch says "don't respond to kedusha or kadish during shemona esrie." So Magen Avraham is pointing out that even though for kadish and kedusha it's an interruption to respond amen, for birchat cohanim it is not. Bach and Taz elaborate that since birchat cohanim was instituted by the Rabbis to say in shemona esrie it's different than kadish and kedusha which weren't.) If the chazan is confident he won't get thrown off he may respond "amen" (from Lechem Chamudot and also Midrash Rabbah beginning of Parashat Ki Tavoh.) However in the Tosafot Yom tov he retracted from this and wrote "we don't learn halacha from midrash etc." The Bach as well wrote from the Mordechie Ha'aruch that the chazan may only do birchat cohanim (if he's confident he won't get thrown off) because if he doesn't do it no one else will but he's not allowed to answer amen. Similarly in siman 585 he writes from Rav Shlomo Luria that "a chazan may not blow the shofar (on Rosh Hashana when blown during shemona esrie) even if he's confident it won't throw him off (this is based on someone else being able to do it. So he understands by birchat cohanim only permitted because no one else will do it but for the shofer, and similarly for answering amen, he may not.) The opinion of the Shulchan Aruch seems to me to be (in our siman he writes can only do birchat cohanim when you won't get thrown off AND there's no other cohanim there. However by shofer he just says as long as you won't get thrown off. So Magen Avraham explains the distinction) that by birchat Cohanim since he needs to move away from where he was saying shemona esrie, in order to say birchat cohanim, we only permit it if there's no other cohanim there. But by blowing the shofer, where he can stay standing in the same place, it's permitted (even when other people who can blow are there.) If this distinction is true, it would mean the Shulchan Aruch would hold he could also answer amen to birchat cohanim if he's confident (since can stay in his place it's just like blowing the shofer where no concern off getting thrown off and as for interrupting during davening, Tosafot already said thats not a concern.) If this was true in there times than all the more so in our times where he has a siddur (less likely to get thrown off because can just follow along.) This is also implied previously (the Levushie Serad says he intended to quote what he says later in sief katan 31 where he discusses if having a siddur now makes a difference to whether were worried he'll get thrown off.) and see what I say in the beginning of siman 116 (Levushie Serad says he intended to quote siman 110 sief katan 4 where the Magen Avraham discusses a halacha relating to not being allowed to daven something out of a concern he will get thrown off.)

30. (Rama said "whether they told him to go up determines if he should go up" but this is not always true. It's only true if they told him) before ritzie but if they told him to go up after ritzie he may not go up like I said in sief 2 (that when Shulchan Aruch said "violate a positive commandment if don't go up when they call cohanim" that's only when started to go up at ritzie) and (as Shulchan Aruch himself) says in siman 8 (he says "can only say birchat cohanim if started to go up at ritzie.) And for this reason the chazan would not be violating the positive commandment to go up when they call "cohanim," as I explain in sief 22 (he doesn't say anything relevant to this discussion there, so Levushie Serad said it's a misprint and he meant to quote to what he says in sief 2 again) because the call for the cohanim to go up is after retzie.

31. Since we daven with a siddur i fulfills this requirement of needing to be confident to be able to go back to your davening. Nevertheless, if there's other cohanim there the chazan may not say it (Lechem Chamudot.) The Bach writes that "our custom is when the chazan is a chazan and there are other cohanim present, a Yisroel, who was concentrating to the chazans shemona esrie, should start saying "elokeinu etc. (until the end of shemonah esrie "hamivorech at amo yisroel) bashalom." The chazan (who was a cohen) then goes back (to his place as chazzan) and says kadish."It's implied from them (The Lechem Chamudot and Bach) that when there's other cohanim present, the chazan should not say birchat Cohanim (the Lechem Chamudot said this explicitly, quoted before. And the Bach implied this because since he said in his case that "there's other cohanim present," it implies that that is a factor which makes a difference. It wouldn't make a difference if having a siddur would allow the chazan to do birchat cohanim even when there's other cohanim present.) This is also implied from the Mahram. In the Mahrils responsa siman 179 he writes "even though it would seem that since we have siddurs now in days we can differentiate ourselves from the previous generations and say we won't make mistakes (therefore even if other cohanim are present, chazan should be allowed to make birchat cohanim,) nevertheless who can say such a thing as the king, the Mahram, didn't make such a distinction." Now in days the custom is for the chazan to say birchat cohanim, even when there's another cohen there. I don't know what this custom is based on. The Nachalat Tzvi purposes that "their relying on the fact that we have siddurs now." This is an astonishing to say as all the great Rabbis I previously quoted (Lechem Chamudot, Bach, Mahram and Mahril) didn't want to rely on this distinction! It's possible that the custom is based on what the Bach says in siman 585 from Rav Shlomo Luria that according to the Tur who permits the chazan to blow the shofar (even when someone else is present who can do it,) the same reasoning would allow the chazan to do birchat cohanim even if there's other cohanim present (the reasoning by both seems to be that since the chazan has a siddur, he's not going to get thrown off.) However this answer is really pushing it because from the Tur here not making a distinction about having siddurs, it seems he hold like the Mahram (so to say the custom is based on the Tur would mean that the Tur contradicted himself.) So the proper understanding of the Tur is what I said before (Magen Avraham end of sief katan 29 explained the Shulchan Aruch to distinguish between blowing the shofar and doing birchat cohanim because by birchat cohanim have to move from the place where your davening and therefore prohibited when there's other cohanim who are present. As oppose to by blowing the shofar where he can remain in his place. So that's also why the Tur allows the chazan to blow the shofar even when there's other available people. And the Tur is not based on having a siddur making a difference.) Therefore (since this custom has no clear basis), I think in a place with no custom the chazan shouldn't say birchat cohanim if there's other cohanim present in order to follow the opinions of all the great Rabbis (that having a siddur didn't change the halacha.)

32. The proper text in the Shulchan Aruch should be "move a little at avodah," and this is also the text of the Tur.

33. Even in such a scenario (where the the person who led birchat cohanim is finishing shemona esrie) the chazan (the cohen who davened until birchat cohanim) needs to pay attention (when that person reads) for the rest of shemona esrie. Therefore (even when the cohen chazan isn't doing birchat cohanim, he may not say shemona esrie unless) he is confident (he will be able to pay attention to the other person. The Bach says this because by paying attention it's like he's saying it and that's necessary because otherwise you'd have him having said only a partial shemona esrie. But now it's like he said the whole thing) [Bach]. However the Beis Yosef implies that if the person who lead birchat cohanim is going to finish shemona esri, the cohen who was originally the chazan, doesn't need to be confident that he will be able to pay attention to the person finishing shemona esrie (he's not concerned about the cohen chazan now having said a partial shemona esrie.)

34. The phrase "work to," has a connotation that the initial choice should be someone who's a yisroel (and only if can't get one should a cohen be used.) (Kenneset Hagedola in the name of great Rabbis.)

35. The reason for this is so they don't come to loose concentration. This being the basis would mean that they should for sure not be looking in other places (if someone looking at the person giving him a beracha impacts his concentration, than for sure if he's staring in random places)! See siman 229 which implies the word "lihistakel" implies to stare but it does not mean a simple glace (the Shulchan Aruch there quotes the Rosh who says when says can't be "mistakel" at a rainbow, it only means can't stare but you must glace at it before you make the beracha on it. So the Magen Avraham holds so to here the term "lihistakel" only prohibits staring.) However the custom is to not look at all (at the cohanim during birchat cohanim.) It's possible that the reason for this is that its a commemoration to the temple where they wouldn't even be allowed to glace at the cohanim during birchat cohanim out of respect for the Divine presence. And if someone would stare, in the times of the temple there eyes would be weakened.

36. When the Shulchan Aruch says you may be on the sides of the cohanim, he is only allowing facing them diagonally but he is not allowing one to stand diagonally to there backs. An example of this would be those that stand against the eastern wall of the shul and the ark, which the cohanim stand before, comes a little bit within the shul (i.e. it's not built in to the wall but rather against the wall making them stand father into the shul then the people against the east wall. Since those people will end up diagonally to the cohanims backs) they are not included in the cohanims beracha. However the Bach writes that "since now in days people buy there seats in the shul (if your seat ends up to the cohanims backs) you are considered to being in a forced situation because you can't go from your place to someone else (who's in front of the cohanim) and just push them away. And if someone doesn't have a seat in the shul and needs to stand in the shuls courtyard, all the more so should he be considered in a forced situation (and it should be ok for him to stand where he is despite being behind the cohanim.)" There is a small proof to the Bach from the Gemara in Megillah daf 22 where it says "Rav wouldn't fall on his face (for tachanun) because there was pavement before him (there's a prohibition in the Torah, Leviticus 26:1, from bowing in a certain way on a certain material. So Rav couldn't bow). And he couldn't just go to somewhere where there was no pavement because he didn't want to trouble the congregation (they'd have to stand for him to get to that place. So maybe also here the Bach is correct that shouldn't have to move from your place to have to get in front of the cohanim because you'll be troubling everyone to move from before you.) Nevertheless (despite a Gemara which supports him) I think (if someone's in this position) they should go to the Cohanims seats which are currently vacated or just move a little away from the wall to be on the cohanims sides (only prohibited from being behind them but can be directly beside) or go to the middle of the shul (apparently that's open). Those people in the shuls courtyard can obviously stand on the side of the shul (so diagonally in front of them) or on the west side (and aren't considered in a forced situation where the Bach allowed them to be even behind the cohanim.)

37. The reason we don't use woman and children (as the people who would be blessed if the only male adults are cohanim is because woman and children are not blessed through birchat cohanim as) the verse says (when Hashem commanded birchat cohanim) "so should you bless bnie (lit. sons) yisroel." This implies this blessing is not for the daughters of yisroel (Bach.) However the Gemara in Sotah daf 38 brings that "(if just said "bnie yisroel") I would only know to include boys of yisroel (in birchat cohanim), how do I know to include converts, woman and slaves? The verse addresses this through saying (by the commandment of birchat cohanim a superfluous phrase of) "say to them." This phrase adds all these people (to the blessing of the cohanim. So you see the Bach is incorrect to say there not included in the beracha of birchat cohanim!)" You can't answer (for the Bach that woman and children are) only (included in birchat cohanim) when there's also male adults present (so in the Shulchan Aruchs case there's no other Yisroel males present) because if that's true (that the Gemara is only including woman and children when there's other yisroel adults present) the same thing would be true by converts (the Gemaras source for converts being included in the blessing is the same source that it has for woman and children. So if for woman and children there only included with other yisroel adults present also converts are only included if there's other yisroel adults present. And this would mean in practice that if there's a shul of only cohanim and converts, 10 cohanim should not give thee blessing and only the extra ones should do birchat cohanim (because according to the Bach, the converts aren't included in the blessing since there's no other yisroel adults present and therefore its like the case of the Shulchan Aruch of having a shul of only cohanim! The Magen Avraham doesn't prove that this is not what you do and seems to be just relying on the fact that no one says it.) Therefore I think (the Bach is wrong and woman, children and converts are completely included in the blessing of birchat cohanim like the Gemara in Sotah says. However, the reason the Shulchan Aruch in a shul of only cohanim didn't say that the woman and children are the people being blessed is because) by themselves they aren't enough to make the beracha be said over them like Rashi says when there's less than 10 cohanim (the Gemara in Sotah 38b, which is the basis for the Shulchan Aruchs halacha, says "in a shul of only cohanim when they get to birchat cohanim if having 10 stay in the crowd to be blessed would leave them with not enough cohanim to say birchat cohanim, you have them all go up and don't have some stay down to be the recipients of the blessing." Rashi explains "because if there aren't 10 cohanim who would be the recipients of the blessing, it's not enough recipients to make the blessing be said on." So woman and children as well aren't enough to make the blessing be said over.) Nevertheless (despite the beracha needing men to be present to be made) a womans womb is blessed through the men.

38. Since the people responding are cohanim, it's not enough if there's less than 10 of them. However in sief 1 where there are yisroelim responding even if it's less than 10 it's enough for them to make the beracha.

39. The M"A in siman 95 and the Bach also write this. I think that people who say them (the pesukim) should say them when the chazan is saying the words (for the cohanim and not when the cohanim are making the beracha)

40. The reason for this is because there's no prohibition of "bal tosif (in Deuteronomy 4:2 says may not add on to the commandments of Hashem. A cohen making birchat cohanim is not violating this prohibition because he's not creating an additional commandment but rather performing one twice.) If a cohen is davening and there's no other cohen present he should stop davening in order to say birchat cohanim. However if there's other cohanim present he should not stop (Radvaz chelek 1 siman 153.) I think that if they tell the cohen to go up he always needs to go up (even if there's other cohanim present) because there's a positive commandment for him to perform birchat cohanim in such circumstances (so he should interrupt shemona esrie to perform it.) This is also evident to be true from (some) Rabbi s allowing a cohen who's called up to the Torah when he's reading kriat shema to interrupt and go up for his aliyah (so if can go up for an aliyah for sure can interrupt to perform a positive commandment! The Magen Avraham doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that that is discussing interrupting shema while were discussing interrupting shemona esrie which is more stringent. The reason being because when you look at the case in its entirety there's more of a reason to interrupt shemona esrie for birchat cohanim than interrupt kirat shema for an aliyah. Because over there, they only give you the aliyah first out of respect for you being a cohen so it's not such a big deal if you don't go up when your reading shema because there not disrespecting you AND if you'd go up it's a big interruption since kriat hatorah has nothing to do with kriat shema. And even so, you interrupt! So surely over here, when called to do birchat cohanim, where you'd violate a commandment by not going up AND birchat cohanim is not such a interruption of shemona esrie as it was incorporated inside of shemona esrie, you should certainly interrupt.) This is also implied from the Rashba siman 185 (he disagrees about interrupting shema for kriat hatorah but only because it's not disrespectful to the cohen for him not to go up when reading the shema. Implying if there's more of a reason to interrupt then simple respect, he would have to interrupt! So over here there's a positive commandment and therefore should go up.) and Tosafot in Sotah (Tosafot there, 38b, brings a discussion if a cohen should do birchat cohanim if it involves becoming impure which he is biblically prohibited from becoming. So if he has a discussion about a cohen violating a negative commandment to do birchat cohanim, for sure a cohen should interrupt shemonah esrie for it!

41. I think that if by going up to say birchat cohanim the time of prayer will pass (only can pray until a certain time) then the cohen should go outside the shul and daven (because only commanded to say birchat cohanim if they told him to go up) but if they told him to go up (then even if he won't have enough time to daven after saying birchat cohanim) he needs to go up because saying birchat cohanim is a biblical commandment while davening is only a rabbinic requirement. This is also implied from Tosafot in Mesechta Sotah 38b, where he quotes a yirushalmi (in regards to if a cohen should do birchat cohanim if it involves becoming impure which he is biblically prohibited from becoming. So if he has a discussion about a cohen violating a negative commandment to do birchat cohanim, for sure a cohen should do it if he just won't be able to daven.) If a cohen sees the time he has to say kriat shema will pass (if he says birchat cohanim. So now it's more difficult than previous case because kriat shema one is also biblically obligated to perform) then one should only read the first verse of kriat shema like it says in the end of siman 46 (Rama brings on sief 9 that if one is worried the time for kriat shema will pass he should say the first verse because that's the biblical part. So to here he should perform only the biblical part and then go to birchat cohanim which is also biblical.)

42. This blemish is someone being spotted with small dots (Tur siman 225.)

43. This blemish is when it's bent to there sides or according to the Ran when one can't part his fingers.

44. (He's considered a temporary dweller because he doesn't do business with them still (Terumat Hadeshen there.) However the Bach argues and allows even someone who visits for 30 days (and has a blemish to say birchat cohanim because there used to him by then.)

45. However if they don't have the custom of covering themselves with there talis's, then even if all the cohanim do it, it's still prohibited for this cohen with a blemish to say birchat cohanim because since they changed from there ordinary way of doing things people from the congregation will stare and it will distract them (and just like we said in sief 23 that we don't allow staring at them because will distract them, so to won't allow this.)

46. similarly one who mispronounces a chies as a hey can't say birchat cohanim unless everyone from the city does that (Radvaz chelek 1 siman 45 and RI"T chelek 5 siman 16.):

47. Even though we don't find the letter ayen in birchat cohanim (so why would it matter if he mispronounces it) nevertheless when he says "ya'ar Hashem" (spelled with an aleph) he will pronounce it like he pronounces an ayen because to him an aleph and ayen are the same (Rav shlomo Luria explaining the Smag.)

48. It's implied from (the Shulchan Aruch saying that this is the factor to determine if he goes up that if this factor isn't present) even if someone's 13 years old he's prohibited from going up. Therefore we must be careful about this to not have him be making a beracha in vain (if he's not old enough to say birchat cohanim and says it, it's in vain.)

49. He's able to make the beracha like it says in siman 215 (says there that a minor can make a beracha because your teaching him how to do mitzvot and you can respond "amen" after.)

50. I think that now in days, where we only do birchat cohanim during the Yomim Tovim, (so the question is, do we say since these are the only times we do birchat cohanim it's called doing it "permanently/always" which the Shulchan Aruch said is prohibited? To this the Magen Avraham answers) one in this stage of maturity may do birchat cohanim every Yom Tov because it's not called doing it "permanently/always" unless your doing it every day.

51. (The Gemara in Berachot daf 32b prohibited this) based on the verse (in Isaiah 1:15) which says ("When you lift up hands to me I will turn my eyes away from you, though you pray at length I will not listen,) your hands are filled with blood."

52. (The reason this person is not included in the prohibition of murderers, even done accidently, not being able to do birchat cohanim is because) he (killed him while) intending to do a mitzvah. Furthermore, who says his "months were finished (i.e. maybe the kid was already going to die) and also maybe the "wind messed the kid up" (the circumcision alone didn't kill him but another factor helped, namely the exposure the child had to the air.) (Mordechie and Hagoas Maimonedes) This reason (for being able to do birchat cohanim because) the "wind messed him up" is applicable to someone who killed someone accidently but the person didn't die immediately like we say in Mesechta Gittin daf 70b see there where there's another reason to exempt someone from killing someone when the person killed was convulsing before there death [says there "If someone accidently slits someone's esophagus and trachea or the majority of both of them, even though this action will for sure result in that persons death, he doesn't get exiled (which is the punishment for killing someone accidently) because were worried (that there was another factor which ultimately assisted in this persons death namely) the wind messed the guy up (the "air was bad" so since he only partially killed him there's no punishment of exile) or (another reason he is not exiled is because after you sliced his esophagus and trachea he started convulsing and therefore) he made his death happen sooner (so you weren't the only factor that ultimately killed him.) The difference between these two answers is if he convulsed in a marble house (no air since the walls are good. So based on the air being the reason he's exempted, in this marble house, where there's no bad air, he would be obligated but the person still convulsed making his death come about sooner. So based on the convulsions being what exempts him, they are still present here and therefore he wouldn't be exiled." So the Magen Avraham is pointing out that since the Mordechie applied that Gemara, to a person who killed being able to say birchat cohanim, we should apply both exemptions listed there. Namely that he can say birchat cohanim if the air might have been involved in his death or his convulsions were involved in making him die faster.) Also see Tosafot there [Tosafot says "the Gemara can be explained that these two reasons for exempting one from exile (air and convulsions) are arguing on each other or they can be agreeing and just said different reasons. Also these exemptions are only enough to exempt one from exile maybe based on some source but they do not exempt someone if he killed on purpose." So the Magen Avraham is pointing out that based on what Tosafot says, it's not such a simple thing to apply this Gemara because that might have been specifically by exile and even by exile it might be an argument which one of these factors exempt one from exile.]

53. However (even if all the evidence against him is just talk) if he knows that (this rumor) is true he may not do birchat cohanim (Ralbach 117.) If one pushes a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage he may still do birchat cohanim (there 25.)

54. The term "Mumar" (lit. "opposes" as in opposes the torah) is referring to someone even if he didn't actually perform idolatry. If one did perform idolatry, even against his will, he would not be permitted to do birchat cohanim according to the stringent opinions [this ruling is based on the Bedek Habayits understanding of the Rambam (he points out that "the Rambam seems to distinguish between a mumar and someone who performs idolatry in regards to whether they can do birchat cohanim when they were forced to do it AND if repenting makes a difference. A mumar can do it in both of these scenarios while someone who actually performed idolatry cannot." It should be noted that the Shulchan Aruch doesn't appear to follow what he says in Bedek Habayit because the Shulchan Aruch distinguishes between being forced to do idolatry and repenting from doing it in regards to saying birchat cohanim. While the Bedek Habayit said both of these cases would have the same halacha.)] This is also the custom in his place (Radvaz chelek 2 219.) However if someone says he's going to be a mumar and changes his mind he does not become invalidated from performing birchat cohanim (there 25.) (Now that we clarified the halachot of a "mumar" vs "actual idolatry" the Magen Avraham moves on to defining what these terms mean.) The Ral Chaviv says that a "mumar is someone who says (to something) "you are my god." This is also how R"A Sasson siman 156 defines a mumar (difference between mumar and idolatry then, is whether he actually served them or was just lip service.) I think (Magen Avraham appears to be arguing that saying to something "you are my god" is considered full idolatry and not under the category of a "mumar") that when the Rambam said mumar, he is referring to someone who pledges himself to Islam. So even though he's not considered to be performing idolatry, he may not perform birchat cohanim because he denied his own belief (i.e. by pledging himself to Islam, he's denying his belief in Torah Moshe and therefore is a heretic despite serving G-D.) Even though in our texts of the Rambam it says "a mumar to idolatry (not Islam)," this was not what the Rambam wrote and is a result of the printers editing his work, an idea that is well known to have occurred. (The Magen Avraham now moves on to answer a question the Bach had on a different point.) The Bach asks "A person who is uncircumcised because his brothers died when they were circumcised (so were worried he will also die) is invalidated from performing in the temple. So it needs to be well thought through why the halachik authorities didn't invalidate him for performing birchat cohanim as well, based on the fact that there's a hekesh (comparison) between birchat cohanim and the temple service." (The Magen Avraham comments) what the Bach says needs to be well thought through because the Gemara at the end of Mesechta Ta'anit (daf 26b) says that there only compared in regards to leniency to permit him to do birchat cohanim when eats grapes but there not compared to be stringent [Gemara there says that doing birchat cohanim is compared to both a nazir and someone serving in the temple (what a nazir and someone serving in the temple can do teaches us what a cohen can do and still perform birchat cohanim. For example neither a nazir nor someone serving in the temple can get drunk and therefore neither can a cohen who's doing birchat cohanim. Since these two people (a nazir and someone serving in the temple) have different laws (for example a nazir can't eat grapes while someone serving in the temple can. And someone serving in the temple can't have a blemish while a nazir can.) Gemara says doing birchat cohanim should be compared to the more lenient laws of the two, So] he can eat grapes (like someone serving in the temple) and can have a blemish (like a nazir). This idea that we take the more lenient laws is evidently true because there's many laws, listed in the second perek of Mesechta Zevachim, pertaining to who can perform in the temple which are not qualifications for someone doing birchat cohanim. Another place we find this idea (of not applying all the laws which disqualify one from performing in the temple, to birchat cohanim) is in the Smag who says "a mumar (opposed/denies the Torah) can perform birchat cohanim because the only comparison we derive from serving in the temple is in regards to them having to stand like it says in Mesechtat Sotah and Ta'anit." And even the Rambam, and those who rule like him, who say "a mumar is disqualified from performing birchat cohanim" (so seems that the Rambam derived more laws from the qualifications needed to serve in the temple! The Magen Avraham explains this is not the reason the Rambam disqualifies him. But rather) the reason is because the source for disqualifying someone from temple service if he's a mumar is because we want to penalize/fine him like it says in Mesechtat Avodah Zara daf 52b. So that reason should also say that he shouldn't do birchat cohanim (because we want to penalize him. The reason a mumar is disqualified is not because of the comparison in laws between doing birchat cohanim and to who is allowed to serve in the temple and) if there's no reason to penalize this cohen (he has a blemish etc.) we should not disqualify him from performing birchat cohanim as the Gemara explicitly says (Now another question from a different Rambam on him seemingly deriving stringencies from who can do birchat cohanim from who can perform the temple service.) The Rambam says "a drunk can't perform birchat cohanim because it's compared to the temple service." (He only compared to laws of the temple service to be lenient in regards to the amount of wine prohibited.) That if (someone performs in the temple after drinking wine) that was diluted the wine or drank it in breaks he is exempt from punishment. As oppose to the laws of a nazir where even a drop of wine (so drinking in breaks doesn't help) and even if it's diluted it's prohibited. So that's why Rambam compared it to temple service and he is consistent with the Gemara. (so now that we know the answer to the Bachs question for why we should not learn from the temple service that an uncircumcised cohen can't perform birchat cohanim namely because we don't compare birchat cohanim to who can perform in the temple when it's a stringency, it turns out) that even someone who didn't circumcise himself on purpose (not out of danger) can do birchat cohanim like the Rama says in siman 39 (that other sins don't disqualify one from performing birchat cohanim.)

55. The Rabbeinu Yirucham writes "only someone who is as drunk as Lot (see Genesis 19:1-38) may not do birchat cohanim." The Beis Yosef argues with him, see there [the Beis Yosef says that "the Rabbeinu Yirucham understood the basis for not saying birchat cohanim when drunk is because the laws of birchat cohanim should be the same laws as when your allowed to daven (can't daven when as drunk as Lot was.) However this is not true! Not being allowed to say birchat cohanim when drunk is derived from a comparison between birchat cohanim and when one is allowed to perform the temple service. Since this is the basis, even drinking a rivi'it of wine will prohibit one from doing birchat cohanim just like it prohibits one from performing in the temple." The Magen Avraham now moves on to say how the Beis Yosef misunderstood the Rabbeinu Yirucham.) I think what the Rabbeinu Yirucham said is clear and correct. (This is how he should be explained.) The Gemaras basis for prohibiting one from doing birchat cohanim when drunk is learnt from the prohibition that a nazir has (can't drink wine.) So since that's the basis, just like for a nazir intoxicating beverages other than wine are permitted, so to intoxicating beverages other than wine will allow one to still perform birchat cohanim. (The Magen Avraham doesn't currently directly address the Beis Yosefs point that "Gemara derives the laws of birchat cohanim from the requirements of the temple service, where even other beverages are prohibited." To this question he's either relying on what he's going to say later or he's relying on what he previously said in sief 37 that "we don't derive prohibitions of the temple service to birchat cohanim if those prohibitions don't exist by a nazir." So since other alcoholic beverages aren't prohibited by a nazir, there not prohibited when performing birchat cohanim either.)" You see this distinction (between wine and other alcohol) in the Rambam. He writes "there are six things that stop a person from doing birchat cohanim etc. (then he lists) wine etc. drinking a rivi't of wine etc. (so he didn't say "when one is intoxicated with any beverage" but rather he emphasized drinking "wine" prohibits one from doing birchat cohanim. Implying other alcoholic beverages would not prohibit one from doing birchat cohanim.) And even in the temple service, one does not receive a death penalty for performing the service while intoxicated with beverages other than wine. [The Magen Avraham is now directly dealing with the Beis Yosefs question, that the laws of if one can perform birchat cohanim when he's drunk are learnt out from if he can be in that state and perform in the temple. So since even by other alcoholic beverages he may not perform in the temple, how can the Rabbeinu Yirucham permit it by birchat cohanim? He answers this question by saying, we only apply requirements by temple service to doing birchat cohanim if violating those laws in the temple would result in a death penalty.] So since there's no death penalty for other beverages, there would be no prohibition from doing birchat cohanim in that state. (This is not like the Olat Tamid, he himself contradicts himself in sief katan 90 see there.) So (in conclusion for birchat cohanim)) only prohibition by alcohol, other than wine, is if one is as drunk as Lot. Where if one is in such a state he is exempt from all mitzvot (Gemara in Eruvin daf 65a says this.) It's implied from the Rabbeinu Yirucham that even if he's intoxicated to a degree which it wouldn't be befitting to speak to a king in, nevertheless he may perform birchat cohanim (Rabbeinu Yirucham said "you have to get as drunk as Lot" which is way past the state not befitting to be before a king in. Even so he permits it) because birchat cohanim doesn't have the same laws as davening (where one wouldn't be allowed to daven in such a state.) So I don't understand why the Beis Yosef said "the Rabbeinu Yirucham is applying the laws of tefillah to birchat cohanim" because he's not (by birchat cohanim the Rabbeinu Yirucham is allowing one who is in a state not befitting to speak to a king in, while in such a state one would not be permitted to daven tefillah.) (The Magen Avraham now deals with one final point regarding alcohol which prohibits one from doing birchat cohanim.) I think that if one drinks wine which comes from the vat of the winepress he may not perform birchat cohanim because both a nazir and someone performing in the temple is prohibited from doing this (so we derive laws which are by both to birchat cohanim.) Therefore (since both a nazir and someone serving in the temple can't have it) the Rambam didn't mention it (obviously prohibited.) See siman 99 sief 2 (says how long it takes for one to be considered not intoxicated after drinking) and those times also apply here.

56. Rabach in chelek 2 siman 41 writes that (by other sins one is permitted to do birchat cohanim ) only if he repented. Nevertheless (despite needing him to repent) people shouting (that he is invalidated from performing birchat cohanim) is not enough to disqualify him (Kenneset Hagedolah.)

57. Also if he married someone who went through chalitzah (see Deuteronomy 25:5-10. A cohen may not marry someone who went through this process just like he may not marry someone who's divorced. However) a cohen who performs bad actions and is "without a yoke" (a term used in Tanach to describe a bad person) and is brazen, everyone agrees we don't withhold him from performing birchat cohanim (Rival chelek 1 daf 150.)

58. A great Rabbi asks in his Sefer BH"Z at the end of Menachot, why do we need him to "vow with the congregations knowledge (and not just vow to himself)?" After all we follow the opinion of the one who says one needs to specify the vow (right now the Magen Avraham is following the opinions that understand, what you need to specify, when annulling a vow one needs to say what caused him to say the vow.) Since this is required, when the sage is told of the reason you made the vow (which was to make sure you won't violate these prohibitions again,) he will not annul it like it similarly says in Mesechtat Bechorot at the end of Perek 7 and in Mesechtat Gittin in Perek 4 (says this law, of needing to specify the vow, will result in the sage not annulling specific vows. So one shouldn't need to have the congregation aware of your vow)? I think that since Amoraim (Rabbis from the Talmud) argue about whether you have to specify the cause of the vow and the Gemara doesn't tell us who the law should follow, the Rashba and Rambam were worried that this cohen (who married a divorced woman and vowed, only to himself, not to do it again) might go to a sage who follows the opinion of the one who says one doesn't need to say what caused him to make the vow. This will result in the sage annulling it (so to counter someone from doing this, the Rashba and Rambam made him vow, with the congregations knowledge, and therefore it won't be annulled.) One can't refute my answer (for why it needs to be with the congregations knowledge) based on the fact that by a widow, in Mesechta Gittin daf 34, we say "she must vow (when collecting her portion from her husbands assets) that she can't benefit from all the "fruits of the world" if she already collected her portion." (This is a sufficient method to stop her from collecting more because if she went to annul this vow, the sage will ask her why she made it. And when he finds out it's because we want to make sure she doesn't collect more than she deserves, he won't annul it.) Why aren't we concerned that she'll go to a sage who follows the opinion of the one who says one doesn't need to say the reason they vowed to have it annulled? The Answer is by a prohibited matter they were more stringent [in other words the likelihood of someone finding a Rabbi who follows an opinion of the one who says, one doesn't have to specify the cause which made them vow, is very unlikely. So in Gittin where discussing a monetary concern (she might take more from the assets than she deserves,) were not worried (and we rely on the fact that the Rabbi will make her state the cause of the vow before annulling.) But in the Shulchan Aruchs case it's a concern that this cohen might violate a prohibition (of marrying someone he can't marry.) So that's why were more stringent and make sure there's no way to get around it.] Another answer (to why a cohen need to make this vow with the congregations knowledge if we follow the opinion that one must specify the vow to get it annulled) is based on Tosafot in Mesechta Eruchin daf 23. Tosafot writes that even according to the opinion that you must specify the vow that just means you must say the wording you used in your vow. It does not mean you have to say the cause which made you vow. This is the custom of the world (to not say what caused one to make the vow when getting it annulled.) The Shach and the Perisha express astonishment on this custom, so they must've not seen this Tosafot. (So now getting back to explaining the Shulchan Aruch.) The Rashba and the Shulchan Aruch hold one must say what caused him to make the vow (to get it annulled. Like it says in Yorah Deah siman 228 sief 14. However they were worried about this cohen going to a sage who follows Tosafots understanding. So the cohen would only be required to say "I made a vow not to marry a divorced woman" in order to get it annulled. (He won't have to say why he made this vow so) the sage would have no way of knowing that he made this vow because he is a cohen, and therefore the sage will annul the vow. Because of this concern the Shulchan Aruch required the cohen to vow with the congregations knowledge. By the case in gittin (of the widow vowing in order for her to not take more than her due of assets) just by her saying the wording of her vow, "all the fruits of the world I may not benefit from if I took from the assets already," is enough to have the sage not annul it (he'll know this vow is stopping her from stealing, so won't annul it.) According to this explanation of the Shulchan Aruchs ruling, were not concerned the person having there vow annulled won't even say the wording of there vow, because everyone agrees the law follows the opinion of the one who says one must specify there vow (the only concern is one might go to a sage who follows a different understanding of what it means to specify a vow.) See Evan Haezer siman 6 where the Beis Yosef quotes from the Rambam and is lengthy in his response concerning a cohen who married a disqualified person to him. (Magen Avraham makes one final note pertaining to a cohen marrying a disqualified person in regards to birchat cohanim.) If the cohen said he wasn't a cohen and married a divorced woman he is disqualified from performing birchat cohanim even if he divorced her (and Levushai Serad adds and even if he made the vow required.) [R"I Levi siman 33, see Levush Evan Haezer at the end of his sefer.]

59. He may not do birchat cohanim until he gets rid of her even if he swears off receiving any benefit through her from this day onwards and even if he is currently only staying with her because he's forced, even if his life's on the line, he may not do birchat cohanim (this is what the RA"M chelek 1 siman 59 writes.) This however needs to be thought through because in Mesechta Gittin daf 35 we say "one can make the vow (not to receive benefit through her,) go and perform the service and then go down and divorce her (you see it's not required to divorce her before.)

60. (The Magen Avraham picks up on the fact that by sinning through his contaminating himself the Shulchan Aruch only requires a commitment not to violate this prohibition any more) but he doesn't require one to make a vow. The vows only required by sexual prohibitions because there's a particularly strong drive one has towards them.

61. the term "sanctify him" means to have him open up first (in conversations where the respected party speaks first, he should speak first see Rashi Gittin 59b,) to make the blessing first (he should lead the benching) [Mordechie.] But obviously he still does birchat cohanim. See sief 39 (says only specific sins make one not be able to perform birchat cohanim anymore.)

62. This needs to be though through because we say in Mesechta Sanhedrin perek 7 (Gemara brings a debate of which one of the 2 death penalties are considered to be more stringent, stoning or burning.) Rav Shimon says "burning" is more stringent because it's given to the daughter of a cohen who has intercourse and this is clearly a very stringent sin because the verse says she "profanes (lit. is "Michalel") her father (so it's clearly a severe sin and we see the punishment for such a sin is burning.)" (The Magen Avraham now asks on what the Rama brought that) if it's true that the daughter of a cohen who serves idolatry also profanes her father, what's Rav Shimons proof that burning is more stringent than stoning? When she serves idolatry the punishment is stoning (so you see even by stringent sins, which profane the father, the punishment is stoning?) It must be (this Rama is wrong and) that only intercourse profanes her father because he should've made sure she wasn't alone with a man like it says in Mesechta Ketubot that the reason we stone her by her fathers house (see Deuteronomy 22:13-22) is to say "look at the type of person you raised." but by other sins (which the daughter committed) he isn't able to watch her (and therefore is not profaned through her committing them.) (Now that the Magen Avraham disagreed with the Rama in whether idolatry profanes the father, he deals with the Mordechie which is the source of the Ramas ruling and explains how the Rama misunderstood it.) This is what the Mordechie said "a cohen whos daughter was a mumar (opposed the Torah i.e. served idolatry) or ONLY had intercourse." What he means is "a girl who's a mumar who presumably also had intercourse like it says in Evan Haezer siman 6 sief 11 or a girl who ONLY had intercourse, profanes her father." This explanation is evident from the Mordechie saying "if a cohen had a daughter who was a mumar." (According to the Ramas understanding why would this law be specifically by a daughter) even if it's a son who is a mumar it would be the same law! Must be the father is profaned only through acts of intercourse (which is only applicable by the daughter.) (Now Magen Avraham is bothered that he still didn't seem to answer his question! Because he said before that she only profanes the father since he should've watched over her from having intercourse. So if she rejects Judaism, he can't watch over her anymore. So why should he be profaned? Answer is) even though he can't watch over her to make sure she doesn't have intercourse once she rejects Judaism nevertheless he should've taught her when she was younger (before she rejected Judaism how she shouldn't do such things.) Like we find (Mesechtat Shabbat 65a) that the father of Shmuel didn't allow his daughters to sleep with each other in order for them not to become used to sleeping with foreign bodies (Rashi "it will stimulate sexual desire." So if the father would've have raised his child when she was younger with proper guidelines, she wouldn't commit intercourse even once she rejected Judaism.) This is evident (that we blame the father for her having intercourse even though she is currently not under his control) from the fact that according to one opinion even a married (daughter of a cohen) gets this punishment of burning despite not being under his control at the time! Must be what we said is true (and he's responsible because she wouldn't have done the act if she was raised properly.) (So in conclusion, the Magen Avraham argued on the Ramas understanding of the Mordechie and holds a daughter of a cohen performing idolatry does not profane the father. Only intercourse profanes him, even if done when she's no longer under his control, because he should have raised her better.)

63.The term "Chalal" means someone who was born from a cohen marrying a divorced woman. I think that even the child of a cohen who is only rabbinically considered a chalal (someone born from a cohen marrying someone who went through the chalitzah process is only rabbinically considered a chalal) may not perform birchat cohanim See Evan Haezer siman 7 sief 20.

64. (If someone who is in the seven days of mourning may not say birchat cohanim) then all the more so for someone who's an "onen," where the deceased is placed before him, where he is prohibited from serving in the temple (should he be prohibited from doing birchat cohanim because) birchat cohanim is also a form of service. This question came before me (whether an onen could perfomr birchat cohanim and i prohibited him from performing it) and the Rabbis who issue Halachik rulings agreed (Sh"CH.) The Mahram Tiktin in Migillah also says this. He says "in the Zohar it says "a cohen who's unmarried may not perform in the temple and the cohen who performs makes a beracha as the verse states "he blessed them when he came down from performing the sin offering (Leviticus 9:22.)" For this reason an onen may not perform birchat cohanim because he may not perform in the temple and for this reason we don't do birchat cohanim at night as is evident from Tosafot at the beginning of Perek T"H and see the Hagoas Maimonedes in the third Perek of Hilchot Tefillah and the Rosh Hilchot Yom Hakippur." (The Magen Avraham now goes through the two proofs previously stated and disagrees with each one. First to deal with the proof from birchat cohanim being a type of service and therefore prohibited just like one couldn't perform in the temple in that state.) See what I said on sief 7 that the laws of birchat cohanim aren't derived all the time from what was required in the temple (like a cohen with a blemish can't perform in the temple but still can do birchat cohanim.) [Also see the Rambam who says that a Levi who's an onen may perform his temple service (so if even in the temple certain people could perform there service despite being an onen, it would seem that a cohen should be able to perform birchat cohanim which is not an actual temple service.)] (Now to deal with the proof from the Zohar which said just like an unmarried person can't perform the service so to an onen can't.) The Zohar in Parashat Nasso page 275 says the reason we need one to be married (when performing in the temple) is because the Divine presence doesn't rest on someone who isn't married see there (so the Zohar was only talking about the temple service which had this high degree of Divine revelation through there services. However birchat cohanim doesn't have that level and therefore shouldn't have the requirements which the Zohar says.) (Now the Magen Avraham just elaborates on this idea of whether a cohen needs to be married to perform birchat cohanim.) I am actually bewildered about the people who say birchat cohanim requires one to be married because that was only a requirement for the Cohen Gadol on Yom Kippur where there's a requirement of fulfilling the verse which states "he shall atone for himself and his household (i.e. his wife. So verse clearly states he's atoning for his wife which means he must have to have one.) But during the rest of the year he doesn't need to be married. And certainly an ordinary cohen (doesn't ever have to be married) as it states in the beginning of Mesechta Yoma. However it is implied from the Zohar on Parashat Vayikra page 4 that even an ordinary cohen should be married (although this isn't a requirement which stops him from being able to perform birchat cohanim.) Rather the real reason an onen may not perform birchat cohanim is the reason the Rama gives (in next sief he brings reason for an unmarried person not performing birchat cohanim is because he's not happy enough) so to here by an onen he may not perform birchat cohanim because he's not happy. However (even though I disagreed with the aforementioned proofs there is one point I do agree with) I do agree that birchat cohanim should only be done during the day similar to when the temple service was performed.

65. This is true even if Shabbot is the seventh day and even if he's the only cohen (so him leaving will result in them not being able to say birchat cohanim.) However, if they call him up to say birchat cohanim he may not not refuse because it's in public (on Shabbot there's more people in shul and public mourning customs aren't applicable) (Kenneset Hagedolah.) I think that even during the week (where it's not in public he must go up (if he's called) because he would violate a positive commandment by not going up.

66. The same rule is true for the 30 days of mourning on ones relatives (specific relatives) even if he's the only cohen (so by him not going up they would not perform birchat cohanim.) However if they call him up to say it he must go up like I said in sief 20 in the Rama (Darchie Moshe.) The same law is true for someone burying his deceased one on a Yom Tov where he's prohibited from happiness like it says in Yorah Deah siman 341 (so only goes up for birchat cohanim if called.)

67. The Beis Yosef in Bedek Habayit writes that if he's saying it with other cohanim everyone agrees it's permitted because he shouldn't be any worst than a mioor like it says I siman 34 (minor can say with other cohanim.) The Darchie Moshe also writes this. See what the Smag says. The Yam Shel Shelomah at the end of Mesechta Bava Kama brings that Israelis do birchat cohanim even if there not married while people from Bavel do not.

68. However, someone who's married may say birchat cohanim even if his wifes not with him (Kenneset Hagedolah.)

69. This needs to be thought through because in sief 2 I explained a cohen does not violate the commandment if he didn't uproot himself at ritzie (i.e. he didn't begin to go up when the chazan said "ritzie.") See there and also Shulchan Aruch sief 4 (he brings up the idea of leaving earlier because were worried people might think he isn't going up because he's not an actual cohen. However that clearly isn't the reason for the Rama here because if that's the concern here, the cohen shouldn't come back to the shul until birchat cohanim is finished and there's no mention of that here. Sounds like only goes out for when the cohanim are being called up.)

70.The M"A writes that this is a bad custom. In some places the custom is when Shabbot falls on Yom Tov not to say birchat Cohanim (just like Shabbot throughout the year doesn't have it.) However I do not know what the reason for this custom would be (it's Yom Tov so should say it.) It's possible the reason is because (during birchat cohanim) they say "rebono Shel olam (a tefillah for bad dreams...) So on Shabbot one is prohibited from saying supplications (so since can't say this, don't say it on shabbot even if it's also Yom tov) however on Yom tov where there's not as much of a concern for saying supplications we do say birchat cohanim. This is thee same reason we don't say "Avinu Malcienu" on shabbot (because can't ask for things.) After (I thought of this) I saw in the sefer Pitron Chalomot who says that he found in the responsa of the Geonim that one may not say the Ribon (Tefillah for bad dreams) unless he's a torah scholar fasting and he (the writer of this sefer) disagrees with them and says if it's permitted to fast on shabbot it's for sure permitted to say ribon (the tefillah for bad dreams.) I think that the Geonim are correct. Because chazal only permitted fasting on shabbot since the power of a fast will nullify the dream like fires affect on straw. So (because of this powerful affect it has) it's similar to allowing one to say someones life (he will most likely save him so can violate shabbot.) But the tefillah Ribon (tefillah for bad dreams) isn't like this (it's not as powerful so can't say im saying it to save my life as it's not that powerful.) This is similar to what we say in Yorah Deah at the end of siman 125 that we need the medicine to be known (can only feed someone a prohibited medicine if it's approved by an expert to work.) Therefore (since I explained the Geonims reasoning) we should follow the Geonims opinion because we don't have the power to argue on them through mere logic (saying you think one view makes more sense even though both are possible.) Another answer (to the question on the Geonim of if can fast should be able to say the tefillah for bad dreams,) is that maybe only by dreams which require one to fast may he also say the ribon (the tefillah for bad dreams) but if it's not a dream which makes him have to fast (he may not say ribon.) The Shelah writes similar to this that it's permitted to cry on that day and express his sins (so once permitted to fast he may go all out. But if onot at the level to require fasting nothings allowed.) The Beis Yosef writes from the Agur and the Hagoas Maimonedes that "the custom is for cohanim to go to the mikva before they say birchat cohanim. And since it's hard for them to go to the mikvah every day therefore it became the practice to only say birchat cohanim on yom tov." [I think that (based on this we can answer the previous question of why if Yom tov falls out on Shabbot some have the custom not to say birchat cohanim. The reason is) because the cohanim don't want to nullify there commandment of intercourse which the Torah obligates them to do (there's an obligation for some people to have intercourse once a week, on shabbot. So on shabbot there going to have to go to the mikvah the next morning if they have to say birchat cohanim. And since they can''t go to the mikva on shabbot they can't say birchat cohanim.] The Agudah also writes this. See what it says in siman 613 sief 11. I think that because of this (that we have the custom not to do birchat cohanim if didn't go to the mikvah) cohanim have the custom not to have intercourse on yom tov night in order to not because impure. And even though they will be permitted to go to the mikvah on yom tov morning, nonetheless they will have the status of people who went to the mikvah during the day (one is not fully pure until the sun sets the day after going to mikvah.) And furthermore (another reason for them not to want to go to the mikvah yom tov morning is because) the custom is to not go to the mikvah on yom tov like it says in siman 326 sief 8 (despite really permitted we made a custom to be stringent out of a concern of pulling out hair.) Some have the custom not to have intercourse with their wives on the eve of yom tov (before it started) but this is not proper. I think that if it falls out on the night (his wife) is supoposed to going to the mikvah he should have relations and then go to the mikvah in the morning. See what I say in siman 554 sief 19 (even on Tisha Ba'av, which falls out on shabbot, if it fell out on the mikvah night they have relations.)

71. However, when the chazan is a cohen someone else should say "elokeinu," like it says in siman 20 (that a cohen shouldn't say birchat cohanim unless no other cohen is present So to he shouldn't say elokienu.) (M"TZ chelek 1 siman 29.) Therefore (since a cohen won't be able to say elokienu) we shouldn't have a cohen be the chazan [Kenneset Hagedolah.] However, in these provinces the custom is not like this (we do have the cohen be the chazan in these places.) This is also evident in the Rama siman 135 sief 11 (he writes a halacha about when a cohen is the chazan, so clearly it happens.)

72. (Shulchan Aruch said specific words in birchat cohanim the cohanim turn there heads for. One of them is "licha." The Rama added that were also accustomed to lengthen these words in a tune because "there all the end of a beracha." On this explanation the Magen Avraham asks) I don't know what the Rama is saying because "licha" is not the end of the beracha and even so they turn there faces? I think that the reason they turn there faces at these words (all the phrases of the Shulchan Aruch) is because these phrases all have a suffix of "you ("Hashem should bless YOU" etc.) so in order for the blessing to go on the whole congregation we turn towards them (as for the last word "Peace" which doesn't have a suffix, presumably we turn because it is the explanation of what the "you" is saying or becuase it's the ending.)

73. They should only be lengthy at the end of the word but they should not be lengthy as there saying the word becuase at the time there saying the word it needs to be quiet like it says in sief 26 (says be quiet at the time there making the blessing.) Even though for the phrase "shalom' there lengthy before they finished saying the word, so it's not possible to say the tefillah after they finished the word (not enough time and therefore one says the tefillahas there saying the word shalom), nevertheless what's possible to fix and do properly we do (i.e. really we shouldn't say anything when the cohanim are making the blessing like it says in sief 26 and therefore we say the tefillah while there singing and not saying the words if it's possible to do that and by "shalom' its not.) Now you might ask we are supposed to say the tefillah "ribon" at the time there making birchat cohanim (Gemara) so if we say it when there singing were not fulfilling that? We can answer that in regards to saying ribon at the time of birchat cohanim it's considered that the blessing is not finished yet. Similarly we find by kriat shema that the Gemara says to be lengthy on the daled of "echad," (in order to extend your acceptence of the yoke of heaven which one says at kriat shema.) This is despite the fact that at the daled the word is finished! It's still considered being lengthy in accepting the yoke of heaven (so to here it's considered saying ribon during birchat cohanim if there being lengthy while singing at the end of the word.) [Terumat Hadeshen siman 27.]

74. The explanation of this is that obviously the chazan himself can't say ribon because it would be interrupting his tefillah see what I say in sief 19 (brings from Tosafot that "saying amen to birchat cohanim isn't considered interrupting because it's part of tefillah." But even so saying ribon is for sure interrupting.) And even if someone else is reading the blessing to the cohanim, (not the person who davened the rest of the repitition of shemonah esrie) he may not say ribon because were worried he will get thrown off (he'll loose track of where he's up to if he's jumping from leading birchat cohanim to saying his own personal tefillah.) (Now the Magen Avraham moves on to a seperate Halacha.) If there's not a cohen present we do not say Visearev (a tefillah said during ritzie on Yom Tov for Ashkenazi Jews.) (R"V Lublin siman 30.)

75. The reason they can revoke there rights is because it's there priesthood so they can revoke it (i.e. it belongs to them.) [there.] This is evident in the Gemara (that priests can revoke there rights) because in Perek Hazerua (Mesechta Chulin daf 133a) Rava had a servent who was a cohen and also in Mesechta Bava Kama daf 20 it's brought that Rami bar Chama had Rav Chisda serve him despite Rav Chisda being a cohen (So from these Rabbis having cohanim serve them it must be that the cohanim revoked there rights and therefore they weren't violating the respect one must have for cohanim.) The Rabbienu Yirucham in chelek 3 writes that "a cohen is obligated to do something once a year to show he's a cohen. That can be taking the gifts cohanim recieve or performing birchat cohanim. This is evident in Mesechta Chulin perek Hazerua (daf 133a. Gemara there says Abeye, who was a cohen, wouldn't take the gifts cohanim recieved besides on yom kippur to show he's a cohen. So seems once a year need to do something.) However, according to what Tosafot says there, that "the reason he took on Yom Kippur eve is because so many animals were slaughtered and if someone wouldn't take they would think he's not a cohen," it's implied that one doesn't have to do an act to show he's a cohen (it was only required there because there's a reason people would think your not a cohen on that day.) However the Tur in Yorah Deah siman 1 does sound like the Rabbienu Yirucham (says to take on Yom kippir to show he's a cohen. Sounds like it's not because otherwise people would think "why aren't you taking" like Tosafot explanined.) (The Magen Avraham after having brought that Gemara now goes on to explain the rest of that Gemara.) Gemara asks why wouldn't he just do birchat cohanim (why did he have to take from the meat to show he's a cohen)? Gemara answers "time forced him into sucha corner." Rashi explains this to be saying he couldn't go to do birchat cohanim because he had a set time to learn then. The Rif explains because his stomach hurt and couldn't wait to go (so couldn't do birchat cohanim.).