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 becomeᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢ