Parallel
יומא 13
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
The halachah is in accord with R. Jose, but R. Jose admits that if [the substitute high priest] transgressed that injunction and officiated, his service is valid. Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: The halachah is in accord with R. Jose, but R. Jose admits that if the first [high priest] dies, the second [the substitute] returns to his service. Is that not self-evident? — You might have said: This would involve for him a rivalry in his lifetime, hence he informs us [that this is not so]. R. JUDAH SAYS: ONE PROVIDES FOR HIM ALSO ANOTHER WIFE. But the Rabbis, too, are considering a possibility! — The Rabbis will tell you: Levitical impurity is frequent, death is infrequent. THEY SAID TO HIM: IF SO THERE IS NO END TO THE MATTER. They gave a good answer to R. Judah! What then about R. Judah? — He will tell you: One may consider the possibility of one death, but one would not [go so far as to] consider the possibility of two [successive wives’] deaths.And the Rabbis? — [They hold that] if enactment [on the basis of consideration of the possibility] of death is justified, such [possibility] should be considered to include also two. But the Rabbis ought to apply that consideration to themselves! The Rabbis will answer you: The high priest is careful. If he be careful, why was another priest prepared [to take his place in case of accidental impurity]? — Since ‘ye make the latter his rival, he will be all the more careful. But is this arrangement sufficient? The Divine Law said: His house and that [substitute wife] is not ‘his house’. -He betroths her [unto himself]. — But [still] as long as he does not marry her, she is not ‘his house’? — He marries her. — But then he has ‘two houses’ and the Divine Law said: And make atonement for himself and for his house, but not for ‘two houses’? — He divorces her again. If he divorces her, our question reverts to its place? — No, the provision applies to the case that he divorces her on condition; [namely], he says to her: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] in case thou diest. But perhaps she dies and he will have ‘two houses’? — Rather, the case is that he says to her: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if thou diest. If she does not die, then she is divorced; and if she does die, there is [still] the other one alive. But perhaps she will not die, so that her letter of divorce is valid and the other [the first] one die, and he will stay without a ‘house’? Say rather: He says to her: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if one of you die, so that if the one dies there is [still] the other one alive, and if the other one dies there is [still] this one alive. But perhaps neither of them will die and he will have ‘two houses’? Furthermore on such a condition it, [the divorce,] is really not valid; has not Raba said: If he said: Behold this thy letter of divorce to be valid if thou drinkest no wine all the days of my life and thy life, it is not valid; but if he said: ‘All the days of the life of So-and-so’, then it is valid? — Rather say that he said to her: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if thy fellow [wife] does not die. If her fellow does not die, she [the second wife] is divorced, and if she does die, then there is still the other [the second wife] alive [to be his house’]. — But perhaps her fellow wife will die in the middle of the service and it will become
—
retrospectively revealed that the letter of divorce of the other one was not valid and he would then have been officiating at the service with ‘two houses’? — Rather assume, then, that he says to her: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if thy fellow dies. — But perhaps the fellow wife will die and the letter of divorce of the first wife will be valid and he will stand there without a ‘house’? — Rather [say that] we speak of the case that he divorced them both, to the one he said: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] in case thy fellow wife does not die; and to the other one he said: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if thou dost not enter the synagogue. But perhaps her fellow will not die and she will not enter the synagogue, and the letter of divorce of both will be valid and he will stand without a ‘house’? — Rather: To the one he says: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] in case thy fellow does not die; and to the other one: Behold this thy letter of divorce [to be valid] if I enter the Synagogue, so that if the one die, the second be available, and if the second die the first be available. What will you say in the case that her fellow wife dies in the midst of the service and retrospectively he will have officiated at the service with two ‘houses’? If he saw that she was about to die, he would at once enter the synagogue and would render the divorce retroactively valid. — R. Assi or, as some say, R. ‘Awira, demurred to this: Consequently, if this be so, two widows of one brother should not be married by the brother-in-law? — Scripture repeats ‘his sister-in-law’ twice, to intimate [that even in the case of] two sisters-in-law the law of levirate marriage applies. But then a woman betrothed should not be married to her levir? — [By emphasizing] ‘abroad’ the betrothed woman is meant to be included. Our Rabbis taught: The high priest may offer up a sacrifice as a mourner, but may not eat thereof. R. Judah said: Throughout the day. What does ‘throughout the day’ signify? — Said Raba: It means to indicate that he should be brought from his house. Abaye said to him: But now, according to R. Judah we even remove him [from the Sanctuary], for it has been taught: If he was standing and offering up a sacrifice on the altar, and he hears that one [of his close relatives] died, he should leave the service and go out. This is the opinion of R. Judah; R. Jose says: He should complete his service. How can you then say that we bring him from his house? — Rather, says Raba, ‘throughout the day’
—