Yoma 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

And the matter was clarified [and it became clear]

and it was established]

retroactively, that the bill of divorce of this

second wife,

is not a bill of divorce.

And

it follows that, until the first wife died,

he performed

the High Priest

the service while

having

two households. e.

e.

Rather,

it must be said that he added to his earlier condition [according to Tosafot']:

He also said to her:

“And

this is your bill of divorce, on condition” [if]

that]

your fellow wife dies

during the service.

There is no longer any concern that it will retroactively become clear that, during the service, he had two households.

This answer must also be rejected, for:

Perhaps

indeed

the other wife will die, and the bill of divorce of this

second wife

will be a valid bill of divorce,

as the condition was fulfilled.

And

it follows that

the High Priest will be left

the High Priest

without a wife

at all. f.

And

Rather,

it must be said:

In truth, it is impossible, by means of one bill of divorce given to either of them, to remove him from all uncertainty, even by means of a condition. But there is another way to remove the uncertainty, namely:

He divorces both of them,

and he makes a different condition for each one.

To one

of them

he says to her: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that your fellow wife does not die,

and through this condition he ensures that if her fellow wife dies, the bill of divorce will be annulled and she alone will be his wife. Likewise, if her fellow wife does not die, the bill of divorce will take effect, since the condition was fulfilled, and her fellow wife alone will be his wife.

And to one [the second one], in order to remove the concern mentioned above, lest she die in the middle of the service, causing the bill of divorce to be retroactively annulled, with the result that until then he had performed the service while having two households:

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 condition that you do not enter the synagogue.

From this point, the second wife can preserve the validity of her bill of divorce by fulfilling the condition—not entering the synagogue—and there will not be two households.

We reject this:

And

this advice too is insufficient, for:

Perhaps her fellow wife will not die [that is, the second wife, upon whose death he made the bill of divorce given to the first wife conditional], and the first wife will consequently be divorced, since the condition was fulfilled.

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 will not enter [that second wife, who was divorced on condition that she not enter the synagogue], and she too will consequently be divorced, since her condition was also fulfilled.

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

again

the High Priest will be left

the High Priest

without

any

wife. g.

z.

Rather,

it must be said:

Indeed, he divorces both of them in this manner:

To one

of them

he says to her: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that your fellow wife does not die.

And to one [the second one]

the second one]

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

These two conditions will be effective in every case:

If this one dies [the one who received the bill of divorce on condition that her fellow wife not die]—

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

this one remains [her fellow wife].

her fellow wife].

And if this one dies [the one upon whose death the first wife's bill of divorce was conditional], with the result that the first wife's bill of divorce is annulled, then

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

this one remains [the first wife].

the first woman].

And

what is there to say

as a concern,

perhaps her fellow wife will die [the second one]

in the middle of Yom Kippur, halfway through the service,

and

it will turn out that

the High Priest performed

the High Priest

the service retroactively

until she died

while having two households,

for now that she has died and the condition has been annulled, the first wife's bill of divorce has been retroactively annulled.

The High Priest has a way to rectify this concern:

If he sees

that

she

his second wife

is about to die [that she is tending toward death]—

meaning that she is tending toward death],

he hastens and enters the synagogue [he hurries to enter the synagogue], thereby fulfilling the condition that he made in the bill of divorce of the second wife, who is now tending toward death,

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 one

a valid bill of divorce retroactively,

for 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 Rav Avira: Rather, from now on,

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

if so,

two yevamot who come from one household,

when the husband died and left two wives—

should not undergo yibbum

at all, not even one of them. For in the passage concerning yibbum it is also stated: “who will not build his brother's household,” and we should infer in the same manner and say: The passage concerning yibbum applies only when there is one “household,” but not when there are two “households”! The answer is: It is stated there: “And if the man does not wish to take

his yevama,

and

his yevama shall go up to the gate to the elders.” Now, the second mention of “his yevama” is superfluous. Rather,

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

the verse includes

that even when there is another yevama there, nevertheless one of the two undergoes yibbum.

Furthermore,

Ravina raised an objection to this, and some say Rav Sheravya: Rather, from now on,

since in the passage concerning the High Priest we excluded the betrothed woman from the word “his household,” because she is not called a household until she is married, so too, with regard to the mitzva of yibbum, if her husband died while she was still

betrothed, she should not undergo yibbum,

since there too it is stated: “his brother's household.”

The answer is: With regard to yibbum it is stated: “The wife of the dead man shall not be outside, to a strange man.” And we derive:

“Outside”—

to include the betrothed woman!

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

It is stated in the passage of Emor: “And the High Priest from among his brothers—for his father and for his mother he shall not become impure. And 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 relatives die, he is forbidden to become impure for them. He is unlike ordinary priests, who are commanded to become impure for their relatives.

There is 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 onen, and if he did perform the service, his service is invalid. The High Priest, however, continues his service while he is an onen.

The Sages taught: The High Priest offers sacrifices

even while he is

an onen.

And although he performs the sacrificial service even in his state of mourning, nevertheless, with regard to the prohibition against eating consecrated food while in mourning—which is derived from what is stated concerning maaser sheni: “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 onen.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire day.

And we discussed it:

What

is the meaning of

“the entire day,”

which Rabbi Yehuda said?

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 onen—

from his home.

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

Abaye said

to Rava:

Now,

we find

that Rabbi Yehuda

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

we remove him

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

As it was taught: An ordinary priest who

An ordinary priest who

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

he abandons his service,

because the state of mourning has taken effect upon him,

and he leaves

the Temple;

this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei says: He shall complete

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

And

if

you,

Rava,

said

that Rabbi Yehuda was so lenient in the law of mourning that

we bring him

the High Priest while he is an onen, even

from his home.

Rather, Rava said: What is “the entire day”

which Rabbi Yehuda said—