Yoma 13b — the Talmud in English

And the matter became clear [

and it was established]

retroactively: the bill of divorce of this woman

the second one

is not a valid bill of divorce.

And

it follows that until the first woman died,

the High Priest performed

the

Temple service with

having

two wives.

e.

Rather,

one must say that he added to his earlier condition [according to the Tosafot],

for he also said to her:

“And

this is your bill of divorce, on the condition [

that]

your fellow wife dies

during the service.”

There is then no longer any concern that it might become clear retroactively that during the service he had two wives.

This answer must also be rejected, because:

Perhaps

indeed

the other woman dies, and the bill of divorce of this woman

the second one

is a valid bill of divorce,

since the condition was fulfilled.

And

it follows that

the High Priest is left

the

without a wife

at all.

And

rather,

one must say:

In truth, it is impossible, by means of one bill of divorce given to either of them, to remove all the uncertainties concerning him, even by making it conditional. But there is another way to remove the uncertainty:

He gives bills of divorce to both of them,

and makes a different condition for each one.

To one

of them

he says: “This is your bill of divorce, on the condition that your fellow wife does not die,”

and through this condition he ensures that if her fellow wife dies, the bill of divorce is nullified, and she alone remains his wife. Likewise, if her fellow wife does not die, the bill of divorce takes effect, since the condition was fulfilled, and her fellow wife alone remains his wife.

And to the other [

the second one], in order to remove the concern mentioned above, that she might die during the service, causing the bill of divorce to be retroactively nullified, with the result that until that point he had performed the service while having two wives:

He says to her: “This is your bill of divorce, on the condition that you do not enter the synagogue.”

From this point onward, the second woman can ensure that her bill of divorce takes effect by fulfilling the condition—not entering the synagogue—and there will not be two wives.

We reject this answer:

And

this solution is also insufficient, because:

Perhaps her fellow wife does not die [

that is, the second woman, upon whose not dying he made the bill of divorce given to the first woman conditional], and the first woman is thereby divorced, since the condition was fulfilled.

And

also

she does not enter [

that second woman, who was divorced on the condition that she not enter the synagogue], and she too is thereby divorced, since her condition was also fulfilled.

And

once again

the High Priest is left

the

without

any

wife.

z.

Rather,

one must say:

Indeed, he divorces both of them in this manner:

To one

of them

he says: “This is your bill of divorce, on the condition that your fellow wife does not die.”

And to the other [

the second one]

he says: “This is your bill of divorce, on the condition that I enter the synagogue.”

These two conditions will be effective in every situation:

If this one dies [

the woman who received the bill of divorce on the condition that her fellow wife does not die]—

that one remains [

her fellow wife].

And if this one dies [

the woman upon whose death the bill of divorce of the first woman depended, with the result that the first woman’s bill of divorce is nullified], then

that one remains [

the first woman].

And

what is there to say

about the concern

that her fellow wife might die [

the second woman] in the middle of Yom Kippur, halfway through the service,

and

it would follow that

the High Priest performed

the

service retroactively

until she died,

while having two wives,

because now that she died and the condition was nullified, the bill of divorce given to the first woman was retroactively nullified?

The High Priest can correct this concern:

If he sees

that

her

the second wife

is about to die [

meaning that she is tending toward death],

he hurries and enters the synagogue [

he quickly enters the synagogue], and by doing so the condition he made in the bill of divorce of the second woman, who is now tending toward death, is fulfilled,

and he makes the bill of divorce of this woman—

a valid bill of divorce retroactively.

By fulfilling the condition now, the divorce takes effect retroactively, and it becomes clear that even until she died, she was not his wife; consequently, he performed the service while having only one wife.

Rav Asi raised an objection to this, and some say it was Rav Avira: “If that is so,”

since we derived from the verse that the High Priest may not perform the service while having two wives, because it says “for his household,” and we infer: but not for two households,

then

two women bound by levirate marriage who come from one household,

whose husband died and left two wives—

neither may enter into levirate marriage,

not even one of them. For in the passage concerning levirate marriage it also says, “who does not build his brother’s household,” and we would make the same inference, saying: the passage concerning levirate marriage applies only when there is one “household,” but not when there are two “households”! The answer is: there it says, “And if the man does not wish to take

his brother’s widow,” and

she goes up to

his brother’s widow

the gate, to the elders.” Now the expression “his brother’s widow” is seemingly superfluous. Rather,

the verse includes

the case where there is another woman bound by levirate marriage as well; nevertheless, one of the two enters into levirate marriage.

Furthermore,

Ravina raised an objection to this, and some say it was Rav Sherevya: “If that is so,”

since in the passage concerning the High Priest we excluded a betrothed woman from the word “his household,” because she is not called a household until she is married, then let us say also concerning the mitzva of levirate marriage that if her husband died while she was still

betrothed, she may not enter into levirate marriage,

since there too it says “his brother’s household.”

The answer is: In the passage concerning levirate marriage it says, “The wife of the dead man shall not be outside, to a stranger.” And we interpret this as follows:

“Outside”—

to include a betrothed woman!

Even if her deceased husband had not yet brought her into marriage, but she was still “outside” with regard to him, she is nevertheless obligated in levirate marriage.

It is stated in the passage concerning the priests: “And the High Priest among his brothers—he shall not become impure for his father or his mother. He shall not leave the Sanctuary, and he shall not profane the Sanctuary of his God.”

The meaning of the verse is that if the High Priest’s father, mother, or other close relatives die, he is forbidden to become impure for them. He is unlike ordinary priests, for whom there is a mitzva to become impure for their close relatives.

There is also another difference between an ordinary priest and the High Priest:

An ordinary priest does not perform the service in the Temple while he is an acute mourner, and if he does perform the service, his service is invalid. The High Priest, however, continues his service while he is an acute mourner.

The Sages taught in a beraita: The High Priest offers sacrifices

even when he is

an acute mourner.

Although he performs the sacrificial service even while he is in acute mourning, nevertheless, with regard to the prohibition against eating consecrated food while in acute mourning—which is derived from what is stated concerning second tithe, “I have not eaten of it in my mourning”—his law is the same as that of an ordinary priest,

and

he

does not eat

consecrated food while he is an acute mourner.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire day.

The Gemara asks:

What

is the meaning of

“the entire day”

as stated by Rabbi Yehuda?

Rava said:

It was necessary only

to teach us that it is a mitzva

to bring him

to the Temple for the service while he is an acute mourner—

from his home.

This is so that he will be occupied with the sacrificial service “the entire day,” in order to lessen his grief.

Abaye said

to Rava:

Now,

we find

that Rabbi Yehuda

is stringent in the laws of acute mourning: even if an ordinary priest learns in the middle of the service that one of his close relatives has died,

we remove him

from the service, and we do not allow him to complete the service that he began.

As it was taught:

An ordinary priest who

was standing and offering a sacrifice on the altar, and heard that one of his close relatives had died—

he leaves his service,

because acute mourning has taken effect upon him,

and he leaves

the Temple—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: He completes

the service that he began, and afterward leaves the Temple.

And

if

you,

Rava,

said

that Rabbi Yehuda was so lenient in the laws of acute mourning that

we bring him

the High Priest while he is an acute mourner, even

from his home,

rather, Rava said: What is the meaning of “the entire day”

as stated by Rabbi Yehuda—