Halachah: (And since the Gemara extrapolates S'tam from the words of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, we see that the Halachah is like him ...) (cont. from the previous page). And it appears that Rabeinu Chananel too Paskens - that we also rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Question: And he asks from Perek Kol Gagos (Eruvin, Daf 92a) where Abaye was sitting in the vicinity of Rebbi Zeira and Rabah bar Rav Chanan, when they extrapolated from the Mishnah there that the residents in the large dwelling are considered residents in the small dwelling too, but not vice-versa.

Question (cont.): And the Gemara concludes there that 'If the Tzibur is in the large room and the Shali'ach Tzibur, in the small one, that they are Yotzei'; whereas if the Tzibur is in the large room and the Shali'ach Tzibur in the small one, they are not.

Question (cont.): If there are nine people in the large room and one person in the small one, they combine; nine in the small room and one in the large room, they do not. And the same will apply if they are in two large rooms, since we cannot say that the residents of the one large room are considered residents of the other large room.

Question (concl.): So we see that when it comes to Tefilah, we do not apply the principle that 'Even a wall of iron cannot divide ... '?

Answer: One cannot compare the two Halachos however, because where there are ten people in one room together with a Shali'ach Tzibur, and one person in another large room like it, since the Shali'ach-Tzibur is Motzi the people who are in the room with him, the person who is in the other room is Yoztei too ...

Answer (cont.): And it is in such a case exclusively that we say 'Even a Mechitzah of iron ... ', seeing as he is Motzi even 'his brothers in the fields', as the Gemara explains in Maseches Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 35a).

Answer (cont.): Whereas where it is necessary to combine them (to make up a Minyan), they will certainly not combine.

Implied Question: And as for the case in Perek Ein Omdin (B'rachos, Daf 32b), where citing Rebbi Elazar the Gemara says 'From the day that the Beis-ha'Mikdash was destroyed, a wall of iron divides between Yisrael and their Father in Heaven' ...

Answer: Is not connected with this Sugya, since it is talking about Yisrael's prayers not being accepted like they were in the time of the Beis-ha'Mikdash.

Answer (concl.): But as far as the current issue is concerned, it does not create a division. Consequently, if the community are blessed by the Kohanim via the Kohanim who are with them in Shul, or if the Shatz is Motzi them their obligation, then also he (the person on the other side of the Mechitzah) will be blessed or will be Yotzei Tefilah be'Tzibur together with them.

Reason: Because vis-a-vis Our Father in Heaven, a dividing Mechitzah does not play a role.

Inferred Halachah: The Yerushalmi, in Perek Ein Omdin, extrapolates from here that 'Those who stand by the side are included in the B'rachah.

Question: In the first Perek of B'rachos (Daf 8a) the Gemara cites Rav Sheishes, who would turn round and learn (during K'ri'as ha'Torah)?

Answer #1: One can answer that the case there is different, since he turned round.

Answer #2: Alternatively, Rav Sheishes is different, since he was blind, and was therefore Patur from Leining, due to the prohibition forbidding the recital by heart of the written Torah.

Answer #2 (cont.): And since he was Patur from reading it, he was permitted to study Halachah, even whilst it was being read.

Explanation: And that is what he meant when he said 'We do our thing' ' (i.e. a D'var Halachah), which constitutes the oral Torah; 'And they do theirs' (i.e. the written Torah).

Answer #3: The logical answer however, is that of Rabeinu Chananel, who explains there 'Specifically Rav Sheishes and people like him, whose Torah is their profession; but nowadays, we Pasken like Rava, who rules that 'Once the Seifer-Torah is open (it is forbidden even to learn)'.

Implied Question: And the reason that he (Rav Sheishes) turned his face ...

Answer: Is because it is not correct to study Halachah in front of the Tzibur whilst they are listening to Keri'as ha'Torah.

Explanation #1: Rashi citing his Rebbe states that a Kohen who washed his hands in the morning and is Tahor, does not need to wash them again when he goes to Duchen.

Refutation #1: This seems to be quoted from the notes of a Talmid who erred however ...

Refutation #1 (cont.): Since Rashi explains that 'he did not wash his hands before going up to Duchen', implying immediately before going up ... ?

Refutation #2: Moreover, the Gemara cites the Pasuk "Raise your hands in holiness and bless ... " - implying that washing one's hands comes immediately prior to Birchas Kohanim'?

Refutation #2 (cont.): Since the Gemara currently interprets the Pasuk in connection with Birchas Kohanim, which is synonymous with 'raising the hands'.

Refutation #2 (cont.): And the Yerushalmi in the first Perek of B'rachos implies whichever B'rachah the Pasuk is talking about requires washing immediately prior to it, although the Gemara there establishes the Pasuk by Birchas ha'Mazon.

Proof: This is what the Gemara says there: 'There are three cases that require 'Teikef' - 1. 'Immediately next to the Semichah comes the Shechitah', as the Torah writes "ve'Samach ... ve'Shachat"; 2. 'Immediately after washing the hands comes the B'rachah', as the Torah writes "Se'u Yedeichem ... u'Barchu". And 3. 'Immediately after Ge'ulah comes Tefilah', as the Torah writes "Yih'yu le Ratzon Imrei Fi ... Tzuri ve'Goa'li" ... Ya'ancha Hash-m be'Yom Tzarah".

Proof (cont.): And in Perek Keitzad Mevarchin (B'rachos, 42a) it implies that the B'rachah in question is that of Birchas ha'Mazon.

Refutation #2 (concl.): In any event, we can learn from there that whichever B'rachah the Pasuk is referring to, the B'rachah follows the washing immediately, and in our Sugya the Gemara establishes it with regard to Birchas Kohanim?

Refutation #3: Moreover. If the Gemara is speaking here where he did not wash his hands in the morning, why does it refer to a Kohen and Nesi'as Kapayim, seeing as one anyway needs to wash one's hands for words of Torah ...

Refutation #3 (cont.): As the Gemara says in the first Perek of B'rachos (Daf 11b) and in the second Perek there (Daf 14b), citing Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi 'Many a time we stood before Rav, to learn from him a Perek in the Sifra de'bei Rav, and he would first wash his hands, recite a B'rachah and put on his Tefilin and then teach us'.

Proof: And it also says there (Daf 15a) that one needs to search for water up to the distance of a Mil to wash for Keri'as Sh'ma, so why should there be a difference between Keri'as Sh'ma and Birchas Kohanim in this regard?

Refuted Answer: If it is on account of the B'rachah that precedes it (The Sh'ma) ...

Refutation: Here too (in the case of Birchas Kohanim), it requires a B'rachah before, as we shall see later?

Explanation #2: Therefore it is more logical to explain it with regard to washing immediately before the B'rachah.

The Shi'ur of Teikef: We can learn the Shi'ur of Teikef from the Teikef of Shechitah to Semichah

The Shi'ur of Teikef (cont.): Because the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (Zevachim, Daf 33a) 'All the Semichos that took place there one can apply to them "Teikef li'Semichah Shechitah" except for this one (that of the Asham Metzora), which took place by the Nikanor Gate, seeing as a Metzora is not permitted to enter there (the Azarah)'.

The Shi'ur of Teikef (cont.): So we see that the time it takes to walk from Sha'ar Nikanor to the Beis-Mitbachayim (where Kodshei Kodshim were Shechted) is not considered 'Teikef'.

The Shi'ur of Teikef (concl.): And in Maseches Midos (Perek 8, Mishnah 1) it is implied that it is not nore than twenty-two Amos (which is the combined distance where a Yisre'eilim and the Kohanim can walk, since each one had eleven Amos to walk).

The Order of Duchening: The order of Nesias Kapayim according to Rashi: The Kohen moves his place during (the B'rachah of) Avodah and makes his way to the Teivah (the Aron ha'Kodesh), where he Davens 'Y'hi Ratzon she'Tehei B'rachah zu ... ', which he says slowly, in order to finish it as the Tzibur conclude 'Amen' after the B'rachah of Hoda'ah.

The Order of Duchening (cont.): The Shatz then announces Kohanim if there are (at least) two Kohanim in Shul, but not if there is only one, in which case, the Kohen turns his face on his own - like Abaye earlier who rules that 'When there is only one Kohen, one does not call him'.

The Order of Duchening (cont.): When the Shatz finishes calling, the Kohanim recite ' ... asher Kid'chanu ... ', and start to bless the people. When the Tzibur have concluded 'Amen' (after Duchening), they turn round and straighten the joints of their fingers, should they so wish.

The Order of Duchening (concl.): The Shatz then begins 'Sim Shalom' and the Kohanim Daven 'Ribono shel Olam, Asinu Mah she'Gazarta ... ', which they recite slowly, in order to conclude it at the same time as the Shatz concludes the B'rachah. Then they are permitted to return to their places.

A Kohen Who Served Idols (Opinion #1): The She'iltos in Parshas Vayikach Korach rules that a Kohen who became an apostate cannot Duchen, since he is worse than one who killed someone, about whom the Gemara in Perek Ein Omdin (B'rachos, Daf 32a) rules that he is not permitted to Duchen.

A Kohen Who Served Idols (Opinion #2): Rabeinu Gershon Me'or ha'Golah however, wrote in a Teshuvah that he is permitted to Duchen and that he may be called-up first to the Torah, since, once he does Teshuvah, he reverts to his original Kedushah.

Source: As we learned in Maseches Menachos (Daf 109a) "Only the Kohanei ha'Bamos may not ascend the Mizbe'ach of Hash-m in Yerushalayim", 'only they may eat Matzos together with their brothers, and they have the Din of Ba'alei-Mumin, who receive a portion and are permitted to eat.

Source (cont.): And just as Ba'alei-Mumin are permitted to Duchen and to be called-up first to the Torah, so too, may they'.

Proof #1: Because otherwise, one is discouraging Ba'alei-Teshuvah (from doing Teshuvah), since they will say 'Woe to the shame, woe to the embarrassment!', and they will refrain from doing Teshuvah.

Proof #2: And Rebbi Yochanan said 'Anyone who says that Menasheh has no portion in the World to Come, is discouraging Ba'lei-Teshuvah ... '.

Proof #3: And Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael says that 'Since this person went and became a priest to Avodah-Azrah, shell we throw a stone on to the one who fell?. (See also Tosfos Menachos [Daf 109. DH 'Lo Yishme'u' ]and Tosfos, Ta'anis, [Daf 27. DH 'I Mah']).

Clarification: The Ri explains that even though the Gemara says in Perek Sheloshah she'Achlu (B'rachos, Daf 47a) that 'The person reciting 'ha'Motzi' is not permitted to cut the bread until the participants have answered 'Amen'; and Rav Chisda establishes this to mean the majority of participants, since anyone who takes too long to answer 'Amen' errs.

Clarification (cont.): Nevertheless with regard to Birchas Kohanim, which is in order that everyone should hear, it is not possible to do so as long as someone is still answering 'Amen', because that would entail two voices answering simultaneously, the voice of those who are answering and that of the Kohanim who are reciting the B'rachah, and it is not possible to hear them both.

Question: One well ask that according to the Rav (the Ri) two Kohanim should not Duchen simultaneously ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as we say in the third Perek of Megilah (Daf 21b) In the Torah, one reads and one translates; and we learn there in the Seifa that even in Navi, two people are not permitted to read together ...

Question (cont.): And as the Yerushalmi explains in 'Ein Omdin', this is because 'Two voices cannot enter one ear' ...

Question (concl.): And we said earlier that when there are two Kohanim in Shul, the Shatz announces 'Kohanim!'?

Refuted Answer: What will you says? That B'rachos are different because, since they are Chaviv, people exert themselves and are able to hear two voices ...

Refuted Answer (cont.): As the Gemara says with regard to Megilah 'If two people read the Megilah, one is Yotzei'. By 'Amen' too, people will exert themselves and succeed in hearing two voices.

Answer #1: One cannot compare two voices that are reading the same thing to two voices that are reading two different things, such as when one answers 'Amen' and the other, recites the B'rachah.

Proof: As we learned in the Mishnah in Perek Ra'uhu Beis-Din (Rosh ha'Shanah, 26b) 'The Shofar of Rosh ha'Shanah is of a mountain goat, which is straight; its mouth-piece is overlaid with gold and it is flanked by two trnmpets, seeing as the Mitzvah of the day is that of the Shofar.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara asks there (Daf 27a) how it is possible to hear two 'voices' simultaneously, and it cites a Beraisa which states that "Zachor" and "Shamor" were said in one go, which the mouth cannot speak and the ear cannot hear?

Proof (cont.): One must therefore say that there where the 'voices' are different, where one said "Zachor" and the other, "Shamor", the ear cannot possibly hear it ...

Proof (cont.): Whereas the sound of the Shofar and that of the trumpets are not so different. Hence the Gemara concludes there that they can be heard simultaneously, seeing as they are 'Chaviv' (precious).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the people who are answering 'Amen' also need to hear the B'rachah (of the Kohanim), despite the fact that they err, and as long as they are answering 'Amen' they cannot hear the voice of the Kohanim.

Answer #2 is the Main Answer: The second answer is the correct one ...

Proof: Since the Gemara concludes there that 'Two voices from one person cannot be heard' - such as "Zachor" and "Shamor" from Hash-m, whereas from two people they can.

Proof (cont.): Implying, even if they are (different) similar to "Zachor" and "Shamor", since they are Chaviv.

Proof (concl.): And the sound of the Shofar and that of trumpets are two different sounds, similar to "Zachor" and "Shamor", but they can be heard because they are Chaviv.

Implied Question: Even though in Perek Sheloshah Perakim (Ta'anis, Daf 26b) we Pasken like Rebbi Yossi, who rules that one does not Duchen at Minchah on a Ta'anis, because it is common (on other days) to be Shikor then, and one will come to confuse other days with a Ta'anis?

Answer #1: The Gemara here is asking according to the S'tam Mishnah there, which states that one Duchens four times a day ... '.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it goes even according to Rebbi Yossi ...

Reason: As the Gemara there says 'Now that we Pasken like Rebbi Yossi, on what grounds do the Kohanim Duchen on Minchah of a Ta'anis?

Reason (cont.): Since they Duchen close to Sheki'as ha'Chamah, it is akin to Ne'ilah.

Question: What is the significance of reciting these Pesukim at Minchah.

Answer: They used to fast on any communal calamity that occurred; and the Gemara in the first Perek of Ta'anis (Daf 12b) and in the last Perek of Megilah (Daf 30b) explains that during the last quarter of the day - Minchah-time, one prays for mercy.

Source: As the Pasuk writes in Ezra (9) "And as for me, I sat bewildered until Minchah-time, and when Minchah-time arrived, I arose from my fast, and after renting my garments and my cloak, I went down on my knees and spread out my hands to Hash-m who is G-d" '.

Answer (concl.): Hence they permitted praying for mercy at the time when they (the Kohanim) spread out their hands, since that is a time of mercy, and the Tzibur respond 'Amen'.

Support: As is implied in Perek ha'Ro'eh (B'rachos, 55b) 'Someone who has dream and cannot remember what he dreamt should stand before the Kohanim when they spread out their hands, and say "Master of the World, I had a dream ... " '.