Yoma 13a — the Talmud in English

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei.

And Rabbi Yosei concedes that if

that priest

performed the service

in eight garments, as the High Priest,

his service is valid.

For Rabbi Yosei too concedes that, according to the strict law, he is a High Priest, and all the prohibitions and laws of the High Priesthood apply to him. Rather, Rabbi Yosei holds that the Sages prevented him from serving in his priesthood in practice, so that there would not be enmity between them.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yosei.

And Rabbi Yosei concedes that if

the first priest

dies,

that second High Priest

returns to his service

as a permanent High Priest.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it obvious

that now he returns to serve in his priesthood, for there is no longer concern about enmity?

And we answer:

It might be said that

perhaps you might say that there is reason for concern if we allow the second High Priest to serve in his priesthood after the death of the first priest, because

he would be

the second in relation to the first like a woman who is

a rival wife

to her fellow-wife

during life,

and there would always be enmity between the two of them, because the first would suspect the second that he is awaiting his death so that he may serve as High Priest in his place. And we would have had to institute that the second should never serve.

It teaches us

that we do not fear this.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: They also prepare another wife for him,

lest his wife die. And he disagrees with the Rabbis, who did not fear this.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the Rabbis also,

why did they not fear this?

But

they too

are concerned lest

something occur that would prevent his service. For that is why they instituted another priest in his place, lest a disqualification occur in him.

And we answer:

The Rabbis can say to you:

the reason that they are concerned about

impurity

is because it is

common,

and it is usual that it occur. But

death is not common

to such an extent, and therefore they are not concerned about it.

We learned in the Mishna:

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yehuda:

If so,

that you are concerned about death,

there is no end to the matter,

for this second wife too may die.

And we raise a difficulty: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason? Surely

the Rabbis said to him properly

the Sages

to Rabbi Yehuda.

And we answer:

And Rabbi Yehuda can say to you: Only

for

the death of one

which is a common occurrence,

are we concerned.

But

for the death of two,

that both of them should die, which is not such a common occurrence,

we are not concerned.

And we explain:

And the Rabbis

hold:

if there is reason for concern,

if they instituted concern about death despite its not being so common,

even for the death of two

[of both of them]

we are concerned,

even though it is an uncommon occurrence.

And we challenge:

And the Rabbis,

since they hold that if there is concern about the death of one woman, there is concern even about the death of both, and on the basis of this reasoning they proved that there should be no concern even about the death of one, because if so there is no end to the matter—

let them say to themselves,

let them too say that there should be no concern that an impurity disqualification should occur to the High Priest, for if so, let us also be concerned about the impurity of the second, and there is no end to the matter.

And we answer: There is not so much reason for concern about impurity, because

the High Priest is vigilant,

and guards himself so that he should not become impure, and it is a remote concern that even the second should become impure. But only with regard to death, which does not depend upon a person, do the Rabbis hold that there is concern even about the death of two.

And we raise a difficulty:

If he is vigilant

and guarded against impurity, then we should not be concerned even about the impurity of the first, and

why

did they say that they

prepare

for him

another priest

in case an impurity disqualification should occur to him?

And we answer: There is benefit in preparing another priest:

once we make him

the High Priest for whom they prepare a substitute, who is considered

“a rival wife”

for him [like an additional wife, who is “a rival wife” to the first wife],

all the more so will he be more vigilant

[more] to guard himself from impurity.

And the Gemara returns to discuss what Rabbi Yehuda said, that they prepare a wife for him in case his wife dies, and the reason for the law is that the service on Yom Kippur must be performed by a High Priest who has a wife.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is it sufficient for him

to qualify him for the service

through an arrangement

[through merely arranging a wife]?

But in the verse from which it is learned that he must have a wife—

“his house,” the Merciful One said.

And this

wife whom they prepared for him

is not “his house,”

for he has not yet betrothed her as a wife.

And we answer: Indeed, the arrangement is

that he betroths her

as his second wife before Yom Kippur, so that if the first dies, the second wife will remain for him.

And we challenge further: What benefit is there in his betrothing her?

But

as long as

he has not brought her

under the wedding canopy, to make her married, she is still

not “his house,”

for only a married woman is called a person’s house, and not a betrothed woman.

And we answer: Indeed, the arrangement is

that he brings her in

under the wedding canopy, that woman whom they prepared for him.

And we challenge:

If so,

that he marries the other before Yom Kippur, it turns out that

there would be

for the High Priest

two “houses,”

for both of them are married to him,

and

if

the Merciful One said, “And he shall atone for himself and for his house,”

it implies that he must atone only for one house

and not for two houses.

And the Gemara answers:

that he returns

[and returns] and

divorces her,

immediately after the marriage, before Yom Kippur.

And the Gemara assumed that this was the entire answer, and therefore the Gemara raises a difficulty against it: What sort of answer is this!?

But

if he divorces her—

the difficulty returns to its place!

For once again he has no wife on Yom Kippur in the event that the first should die, and what benefit was there in his betrothal and divorce!?

And we answer:

It is necessary—

what the one who answered said, “that he divorces her,” does not mean that he divorces her completely. Rather,

that he divorces her conditionally,

so that the bill of divorce should take effect only in a manner that ensures that the High Priest will have one wife from among the two, and not both of them together, so that “for his house” will apply to him, and not for two houses.

And now the Gemara explains how he makes the condition, and discusses all the forms of conditions, how the condition can be effective here to remove the doubt.

A. First the Gemara answers:

That he says to her: This is your bill of divorce

from now,

on the condition

[that]

that you die

on Yom Kippur.

And he makes such a condition so that if the second wife dies in the midst of the service, the bill of divorce will take effect retroactively. And it will benefit him, for even what he performed until the time of her death was valid, since it is now retroactively clarified that he had only one house.

And if the first dies and the second lives, the condition was not fulfilled, and it turns out that the bill of divorce is void, and once again he has only one house.

And we reject this:

Perhaps she will not die

the second at all, and the first will not die either,

and

it will turn out that

there would be

at the time of the service

two houses.

B.

Rather,

it may be said:

That he says to her: This is your bill of divorce

from now

on the condition

[that]

that you do not die

on Yom Kippur!

And such a condition will benefit him, whether

she does not die

the second, in which case the condition is fulfilled,

she is divorced

retroactively, before Yom Kippur, and the first alone remains to be his wife.

And

likewise,

if this one dies

the second,

this one remains

the first, and it turns out that he has one house.

The Gemara challenges that this answer too is refuted, for even in this manner there is reason for concern:

Perhaps she

[that is, the second, to whom he gave the bill of divorce]

does not die

on Yom Kippur.

And

since the condition was fulfilled,

the bill of divorce of this one

the second wife

is a bill of divorce,

and she is divorced.

And

perhaps also

her fellow-wife dies,

the first wife, and it turns out that the High Priest

is left without

any

house.

C.

Rather,

it may be said:

That he says to her:

This is your bill of divorce

on the condition that one of you dies.

For then,

if

this one dies,

the second,

this one remains,

the first. For he did not divorce her at all.

And if

this one dies,

the first,

this one remains—

the second.

But even in this manner there is reason for concern, for:

Perhaps she will not die, and

even

not one of them.

And

it will again turn out that

there would be two houses,

for if neither of them dies, the condition was not fulfilled, and the bill of divorce was void.

And further,

there is a difficulty: Is a bill of divorce made

in such a manner, given on the condition that she dies—

given on the condition that she dies,

is it a bill of divorce?

For if she does not die, she is not divorced, and it turns out that this bill of divorce does not permit her to marry until she dies [and although at that point it becomes clear that she was retroactively divorced, as long as she has not died this bill of divorce does not permit her to marry another man].

But Rava said:

One who divorces his wife with a bill of divorce and says to her:

This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you do not drink wine all the days of my life.

And

likewise, if he says, on the condition that you do not drink wine all the days of

your life—she is not divorced, because

there is no

“severance,”

this is “severance,”

for she remains bound to him all the days of her life, and nothing separates them except death, since she must fulfill the condition for the bill of divorce to take effect, and the condition is fulfilled only when all the days of his life, or all the days of her life, have passed without drinking wine.

But if he says to her: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you do not drink wine

all the days of the life of so-and-so—

this is “severance.”

For it is possible that that person will die during her lifetime, and she will not drink wine all the days of his life, and the condition will be fulfilled during her lifetime, and there will no longer be anything binding her to her husband. Therefore the bill of divorce takes effect immediately.

And now, one who divorces her on the condition that she dies—since he made the divorce dependent upon her death, she remains bound to him all the days of her life, and this is not severance, and she is not divorced.

D.

Rather,

it may be said:

That he says to her: This is your bill of divorce on the condition

[that]

that your fellow-wife does not die

[the first wife], through which condition the matter emerges from all doubt.

For

if her fellow-wife does not die—

the first—

she is divorced,

the second, and the first remains to be his house.

And

if

this one dies—

the first—

this one remains—

the second, and she is his wife, for the condition was not fulfilled, and her bill of divorce is void.

But even in this manner there is reason for concern, for:

Perhaps her fellow-wife dies—

the first, in the middle of Yom Kippur,

in the middle of the service,

and since she died before the completion of the service, the condition was void,