Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: "Why is the portion of the priest who recites the benediction (see Numbers 6:22–27) juxtaposed with the portion of the nazirite (see Numbers 6:1–21)? To say that just as it is prohibited for a nazirite to drink wine, so too, it is prohibited for a priest who recites the benediction to drink wine."

It was taught: "The morning prayer, the additional prayer, the afternoon prayer, and ne’ila all havethe raising of the hands," the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehudah says: "The morning prayer and the additional prayer have the raising of the hands, but the afternoon prayer and ne’ila do not have the raising of the hands." Rabbi Yosei says: "Ne’ila has the raising of the hands; the afternoon prayer does not have the raising of the hands."

With regard to what do they disagree? Rabbi Meir would seem to opine: What is the reason that priests do not spread their hands to bless the people every day in the afternoon prayer? It is due to potential drunkenness. But now, [on a fast day,] there is nodrunkenness.
Rabbi Yehudah would seem to opinethe morning prayer and the additional prayer, when drunkenness is not common on every ordinary day, the Sages did not issue a decreeduring them. However, with regard to the afternoon prayer and ne’ila, when drunkenness is common on every day, the Sages issued a decreeduring them.
Rabbi Yosei maintainsthe afternoon prayer, which is recited every day, the Sages issued a decree concerning it, whereas with regard to ne’ila, which is not recited every day, the Sages did not issue and apply their decree to it.

In any event,everyone agrees that it is prohibited for a drunken priest to raise his hands.From where are these matters?

And what did you see that you juxtaposedina leniency?Juxtapose for a stringency!
They aresupportby rabbinic, andas a leniency.

There are six factors that prevent [a priest] from reciting the priestly blessings:
- [an inability] to pronounce [the blessings properly],
- physical deformities,
- transgressions,
- [lack of] maturity,
- wine,
- and the ritual impurity of [the priest's] hands.

Wine: What is implied? A [priest] who drank a revi'it of wine in one gulp should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off, since this is an association that was established between [reciting the priestly] blessing and service [in the Temple].
Should [a priest] drink a revi'it of wine on two different occasions or mix a small amount of water in it, he is permitted [to recite the priestly blessings]. If he drank more than a revi'it, even though it was mixed with water or even though he drank it intermittently, he should not recite the priestly blessings until the effects of the wine wear off.
How much is a revi'it? [The volume of an area] two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths and two and seven tenths of a fingerbreadth high. Whenever the term "finger" is mentioned as a measure throughout the entire Torah, it refers to a thumbbreadth. The thumb is called bohen yad [in the Torah].

The Sages taught: “Drink neither wine nor beer" (Lev. 10:9) - is it possible that it would be any amount, even from its press?
The verse is learnt to teach "nor beer".
There is no prohibition except that one drinks enough to intoxicate. And how much is to be drunk to intoxicate?
A quarter-log of wine that is forty days old.If so, what is to be learnt from the word "wine"?
To tell you that one is warned upon any amount and even warned against wine from the winepress.
Rabbi Yehudah says: "'Wine' - I only understand wine [as being forbidden], whence is it that other alcoholic beverages are forbidden?
The verse is learnt to teach 'nor beer'.If so, what is learnt to teach from 'wine'?
One receives the death penalty for drinking wine, while one receives a rabbinic warning for consuming other alcoholic beverages."Rabbi Elazar says: "'Neither wine nor beer shall you drink; - you shall not drink it in the manner of its being intoxicating. But if one interrupted his drinking, or placed any amount of water into it and drank it, he is exempt."

It was taught:There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv, andRabbi Elai was walking behind him. Rabban Gamliel found some fine loaves of bread on the road, and he said to his student: "Elai, take the loaves from the road."
He encountered a certain gentile and said to him: "Mavgai, take these loaves from Elai."Elai joined himand said to him: "From where are you?"
He said to him: "From the nearby towns of guardsmen.""And what is your name?"
"My name is Mavgai."
"Has Rabban Gamliel ever met you before?"He said to him: "No."At that time we learned that Rabban Gamliel divined it by way of divine inspiration. And at that time welearned three matters: We learned that one may not pass by food, we learned that we follow the majority of travelers, andwelearned thatleavened bread belonging to a gentile, it is permitted to benefit from this food after Passover.When hearrived in Keziv, a person came before him to request that he dissolve his vow.Hesaid to the one who was with him, "Did we drink a quarter-logof Italian wine?"Hesaid to him: "Yes."
"If so, let him journey after us untilour wine is dispelled."And that person journeyed after them for three mil, until Rabban Gamliel arrived at the Ladder of Tyre. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, Rabban Gamliel alighted from his donkey and wrapped himself, and he sat and dissolved his vow.At that time we learned many matters:We learned that a quarter-logof Italian wine intoxicates, we learned that one who is intoxicated may not issue a halakhic ruling, and we learned thata path dispels wine, andwe learned that one may not annul vowseither mountedor walking, or even standing, but only when he is sitting.

Rav Ḥisda said: "The quarter-logof the Torah is two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths, by the height of two fingerbreadths and one half fingerbreadth and one-fifth of a fingerbreadth."

...a Kohen should not raise his hands if he has drank a revi'is of wine in one gulp.
If a Kohen drank a revi'is of wine in two gulps or placed water within that wine, then it would be permissible for him to raise his hands.
And if a Kohen drank more than a revi'is of wine - even if it is diluted with water or he took many separate sips from the wine - he should not raise his hands until he sobers up.

A drunk kohen should not raise his hands.... Rabbi Yeruḥam ben Meshullam (1290-1350) wrote, "It seems to me that a kohen should not raise his hands when he has reached the drunkenness of Lot, as we say generally (in Eruvin 65a)." It seems from his words that the reason of the prohibition of a drunk kohen raising his hands is because it is similar to prayer, but it does not make sense to me, since [bar Kappara] juxtaposed the blessing of the priests to the priests serving, as it is written, "to serve him and to bless" (Deut. 21:5). And similarly did Maimonides write. And, according to this, even if he drank a quarter-log of wine, he should not raise his hands....

And regarding what he [the author of the Tur, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, c. 1269–1343] wrote: 'If he drank it in two instances [with an interruption] or put a small amount of water into it, it is permitted [to recite the Priestly Blessing]'—

This is based on the conclusion reached in Chapter 3 of Tractate Keritot (13a) in the Talmud [redacted c. 500 CE], that the legal ruling follows Rabbi Eliezer [Tannaic sage, 1st–2nd century CE], who said: 'If he interrupted [his drinking] or put any amount of water into it, he is exempt if he enters the Temple [to perform the service].'

And since regarding entry into the Temple he is exempt [from penalty], regarding the lifting of hands [to recite the Priestly Blessing] it is permitted.

For the scriptural juxtaposition (hekesh) of the Priestly Blessing to the Temple service is merely a textual support (asmachta), and it is sufficient for us to forbid him from lifting his hands in a case where, if he had entered the Temple [and performed the service], he would be liable.

And regarding what he [the author of the Tur, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher, c. 1269–1343] wrote: 'And if he drank more than a רביעית [revi'it], even if it was diluted and even if he drank it in several instances, he may not lift his hands [to recite the Priestly Blessing]'—

This is based on the conclusion reached there in the Talmud [redacted c. 500 CE], that the rule stating 'if he put any amount of water into it, he is exempt' applies specifically to a single revi'it. However, if he drank more than a revi'it, even if he put water into it, he is liable.

And it was understood by Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, 1138–1204) that the same applies to what we say—that if he interrupted [his drinking], he is exempt—specifically regarding a revi'it; but with more than a revi'it, even if he interrupted it, he is liable.

And since this is so, he is forbidden to lift his hands [to recite the Priestly Blessing].

A Kohen who has drunk a fourth [of a log = the standard measure] of wine in one sitting may not perform the priestly blessing.
If he drank [that measure] in two sittings, or if he introduced into it a little water, it is permissible.
If he drank more than a fourth, even if it was diluted, and even if he drank it in multiple stages, he may not perform the blessing until he has rid himself of the [effects of the] wine.

Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575) wrote in his Kessef Mishnah [a core commentary on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah] that the scriptural juxtaposition (hekesh) of the Priestly Blessing to the Temple service is merely a textual support (asmachta), and the rule is that a priest is forbidden to lift his hands [to recite the Priestly Blessing] in a case where, if he had entered the Temple [and performed the service], he would be liable. End quote.

This implies that regarding the Temple service itself, there is a prohibition in this case [of drinking a revi'it of wine with an interruption]. Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575) wrote similarly in Kessef Mishnah on Chapter 1 of Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, stating that regarding the ruling of Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, 1138–1204)—that if one drank a revi'it in two instances he is exempt and does not profane the service—there is nevertheless a formal prohibition (azhara).

Yet this is very astonishing: if so, from where does Maimonides (1138–1204) know that in this case the Priestly Blessing is not juxtaposed to the Temple service, and to say that this juxtaposition is merely an asmachta? Is not a juxtaposition (hekesh) one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is interpreted? Furthermore, nowhere in the Talmud [redacted c. 500 CE] do we find a hint that this juxtaposition is merely an asmachta! On the contrary, the Tosafists [French and German medieval Talmudists, active 12th–14th centuries] in Chapter Elu Na'arot wrote that if a priest recited the Priestly Blessing while sitting, he must repeat it and bless again by force of the juxtaposition to the Temple service—and if it were merely an asmachta, they would not require taking the Name of Heaven in vain [by reciting an unnecessary second blessing].

Therefore, it appears to my humble opinion [written here by Rabbi Avraham Abele Gombiner, c. 1635–1682, in his work Magen Avraham] that regarding the Temple service itself, this is permitted. Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575) also wrote this in Kessef Mishnah in the name of a responsum by the Rashba (Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet, 1235–1310), whose language is as follows: "Since the law was decided according to Rabbi Eliezer [Tannaic sage, 1st–2nd century CE], he is not subject to death nor to a prohibition, even for wine, unless he drank a revi'it from it without interruption; and so ruled Maimonides (1138–1204), of blessed memory." End quote. Therefore, it is also permitted here regarding the Duchan [reciting the Priestly Blessing from the platform].

Consequently, it seems clear that if he drank another intoxicating substance—even though regarding the Temple service he is not subject to the death penalty (as Maimonides, 1138–1204, wrote in Chapter 1 of Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash, that one is not liable for death except specifically for wine, but for other intoxicating substances such as pressed figs he is punished with lashes, though his service remains valid)—nevertheless, regarding the Priestly Blessing it is certainly forbidden, since in any case there is a Torah prohibition regarding the Temple service.

All the more so, one who is intoxicated from mead or honey-water is forbidden to ascend the Duchan. And since there is no explicitly stated measure for this as there is for wine, it is forbidden for a priest to drink any intoxicating substance at all prior to the Priestly Blessing—even though, according to the explanation of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575) in Kessef Mishnah, the Priestly Blessing was only juxtaposed [to the Temple service] in cases where one would be liable regarding the service, as mentioned.

Rabbenu Yeruḥam ben Meshullam (1290-1350) wrote, "It seems to me that 'drunk' is specifically when one reaches the drunkenness of Lot that a kohen should not raise his hands." But Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) disagreed upon this approach. See there.
But it seems to me that Rabbenu Yeruḥam's words are clear and correct, since we learn in the Talmud the juxtapositioning of the blessing of the kohanim from the nazirite, who is forbidden from wine. And, if so, then other beverages would be permissible, such as with a nazirite. And also, Maimonides wrote there are six things that hold a kohen back: "wine" and he wrote "One who drank a revi'it of wine..." that there is no death penalty for a kohen who serves under the influence of non-wine beverages in the Temple. Unless, however, a kohen is as drunk as Lot was, then he would be exempt from all mitzvot, and this is inferrable that even if he was unable to speak in front of the king, he would be permitted to raise his hands, since it is not compared to prayer.
And I am not able to discern Rabbi Karo's words that Rabbenu Yeruḥam compares raising of the hands to prayer, since there isn't - see there.
And it seems to me that if a kohen drank wine from the winepress, he would be unfit to raise his hands, since a nazirite is forbidden from consuming it. Also, it is off-limits for a kohen to drink it for the Temple service. Therefore, Maimonides didn't mention it here. And see §99:2, which is the case here.

Wine - how? A kohen who drank a revi'it of wine in one gulp should not raise his hands. If he drank the wine in two gulps or placed a small amount of water within the wine - he is permitted to raise his hands. But if he drank more than a revi'it, even though it was mixed with water or even though he drank it intermittently, it is not permitted for him to raise his hands until the effects of the wine wear off. And if he drank other intoxicating beverages, such as whiskey or mead, there is a disagreement amongst rabbis in recent centuries. And, therefore, it is appropriate for a kohen to not drink any intoxicating beverage prior to raising hands. Nevertheless, a kohen who is weakened and unable to raise his hands if he does not taste anything is permitted to sanctify upon a revi'it of wine in which he places some water or that he drinks with a couple of gulps. And with regards to how much he needs to drink of sanctification wine, he only needs to drink a cheeksful. And with all of this, he is permitted to sanctify in such situations upon mead or that he tastes some whiskey in order that he not lose out on this prescriptive mitzvah.

Maimonides wrote....
And also if he drank wine from the winepress, since it is not yet quite enjoyable wine, it is unfit, as it is with the service. And some say that it is a comparative analogy between two laws which are adjacent to each other of blessing to the service, which is a general scriptural text used as a support for a rabbinical enactment. And some say that it is a proper comparative analogy between two laws which are adjacent to each other. And the practical difference between them has to do with other beverages, as will be explained.

And you should know that all non-wine [intoxicating] beverages are rabbinically forbidden for the Temple service, but there is no death penalty with them, as there is with wine. And, according to this, if a kohen has consumed some other beverages - such as whiskey, mead, or beer - some say that it is forbidden to raise hands, such as with the Temple service, since it is a proper comparative analogy between two laws which are adjacent to each other. However, in the Talmud, it is explained that it is a general scriptural text used as a support for a rabbinical enactment (Ta'anit 27a) - see there. Therefore, in truth, Rabbi Yeruḥam ben Meshullam wrote, "'drunk' is specifically when they have reached the level of drunkenness of Lot, which is when a kohen should not raise his hands." And he seems to include other intoxicating beverages. And the explanation of his words is that over in Ta'anit, we learn the prohibition of wine for the raising of hands from Nazir - see there. And a nazirite is permitted to drink all other non-wine beverages; and with the service, there is no death penalty for drinking non-wine beverages. And, therefore, it should be totally permitted to raise hands, having consumed non-wine beverages and then raise hands. but when one reaches the level of the drunkenness of Lot, then he is exempt from all mitzvot and, therefore, he should not raise his hands. However, Rabbi Karo in his great book wrote that even though he opines that it is a general scriptural text used as a support for a rabbinical enactment, nevertheless, his opinion was that this applied even prior to reaching the level of Lot's drunkenness that a kohen should be prohibited to ascend to the platform, which is no worse than prayer, as explained in §99 that, even without reaching the level of Lot's drunkenness, it is forbidden to pray. And this seems to be the key aspect of the law. (Rabbi Gombiner argues on Rabbi Karo there, although his words are unclear to me; see there. Look and you will find it easily.)

See §99:2, which is relevant here, as well. And all of this is with regards to wine, but other intoxicating beverages, Rabbi Gombiner wrote that it is permissible for a kohen to raise his hands, even if he is drunk enough that he is unable to speak before the king, that prayer, in such situations would be considered an abominable prayer, as above in §99. With raising hands, it would be permissible if a kohen has not reached the drunkenness of Lot, since he would then be considered as an idiot. And such is written by Rabbi Yehudah Ayash (1700-1760) in his Judah's Staff (Matteh Yehudah), but many rabbis in recent centuries have argued on him upon this and opine that also with non-wine beverages - that any kohen who has gotten drunk to the point that he cannot speak before the king should not raise his hands. Regarding wine from the winepress, Rabbi Gombiner's opinion is to prohibit a kohen from raising his hands, but many rabbis in recent centuries disagree with him upon this, since it does not intoxicate.

See in Rabbi Karo's Yoseph's House (Beit Yoseph) what he quoted from the name of Rabbi Yeruḥam ben Meshullam. And see in the Laws of Raising Hands in the book Cluster (Eshkol) (attributed to Rabbi Avraham ben Yitzḥak (1080-1158)) who mentions that there are rabbis who allow raising of hands is only prohibited for kohanim who are drunk, and not necessarily just having consumed a revi'is of wine. See there. And, nevertheless, there is a difference between this opinion versus that of Rabbi Yeruḥam, that they are stringent there, in any event, with someone who is unable to speak before the king, while Rabbi Yeruḥam only specifically finds it problematic to be drunk to the level of Lot. And, therefore, we need the explanation of Rabbi Gombiner; see there. And, nevertheless, the ruling upon which many rabbis in recent centuries have agreed is that any kohen who is unable to speak in front of the king having consumed even non-wine beverages is forbidden from raising his hands, as I have written in the Clarified Teaching (Mishnah Berurah​​​​​​​).