Previous daf

1)

(a) The Rabbanan agree with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah - who is concerned that the Kohen Gadol may become Tamei - because Tum'ah is common, but not with regard to the possibility that his wife dying - because it is unlikely that she will die during that short period of time (Tosfos 2a. DH 'va'Chachamim Omrim').

(b) Even Rebbi Yehudah does not contend with the possibility of *both* wives dying.

(c) The Rabbanan do not contend with the possibility of death, because 'Im Kein, Ein le'Davar Sof'. Nevertheless, they contend with the possibility that the Kohen Gadol may become Tamei (despite 'Im Kein, Ein le'Davar Sof') - because in reality, the Kohen Gadol is alert, and will be careful not to become Tamei.

(d) By appointing a rival Kohen Gadol, we are ensuring that the Kohen Gadol will be even more careful not to become Tamei, to prevent his rival from taking over his position.

(a) The problem with learning that the Kohen Gadol prepares a second wife ...

1. ... but does not actually marry her yet - is that then, she will not be called 'Beiso', and, should his first wife die, he will have achieved nothing by preparing the second one.
2. ... and marries her before performing the Avodah on Yom Kipur - is that, if his first wife does not die, he will have two wives, and the Torah explicitly writes in Acharei-Mos "ve'Chiper Ba'ado u've'Ad *Beiso"* - 've'Lo be'Ad *Sh'nei* Batim'.

(b) We conclude that he marries her and divorces her again. This cannot however, be understood literally - because then, what is the point of marrying her? Because when all's said and done, she is still not called 'Beiso'?

(c) So we interpret it to mean that he divorces her, but on condition. This cannot mean on condition ...

1. ... that she dies (in which case, should either of the two wives die during the Avodah, he will have had one wife) - because then, should neither wife die, he will remain with two wives, which, as we explained earlier, is not acceptable.
2. ... that she does not die (in which case, if neither wife dies during the Avodah, he will have had one wife, and even if she does die, he will still have his first wife) - because should the first wife die but not the second one, the Get will be valid retroactively, and it will transpire that he had no wife at the time of the Avodah.

(a) If he stipulated that the Get should be effective if either of the two women dies, it is not a Get, irrespective of whether one of his two wives dies or not - because, should *she* be the one to die, it will transpire that she was bound to him even after she received the Get (see Tosfos DH 'Kol Yemei').

(b) If a man who gives a Get stipulates that she may not drink wine for as long as *she* lives (see Tosfos 'DH 'Kol Yemei') - the Get is not valid, because she remains bound to him throughout her life (and this is not considered a proper 'Kerisus' - separation); but if he stipulates 'for as long as *so-and-so* lives', then the Get will be valid - because she is not bound to him after so-and-so's death.

4)

(a) We finally establish our Mishnah when he divorces *both* wives (retroactively) on condition, the one, on condition that the second one does not die, the other, on condition that he enters a Shul.

(b) If the second wife is about to die whilst he is performing the Avodah - he stops performing the Avodah and goes to Shul (in order to render the Get valid retroactively, leaving him still married to the remaining wife.

(c) If "Beiso" means only *one* wife, then, by the same token, "Yevimto" means only *one* Yevamah. In that case, if a man dies, leaving *two* Yevamos, his brother should not be permitted to make Yibum?

(d) Yibum is different, answers the Gemara - because the Pasuk writes "Yevimto" twice, to include even a second Yevamah in the Din of Yibum.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ha'Chutzah" - that a betrothed woman is also subject to Yibum.

(b) Otherwise we would have thought that, since the Torah used the word "Beiso" in connection with Yibum, Yibum only pertains to a *married* woman (like we learnt in connection with the Kohen Gadol).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "le'Aviv u'le'Imo Lo Yitam'a u'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei ve'Lo Yechalel ... " - that a Kohen Gadol brings Korbanos even when he is an Onan.
2. ... "Lo Achalti ve'Oni Mimenu" - that an Onan is not permitted to eat Ma'aser Sheini.

(b) We learn that a Kohen Gadol who is an Onan may not eat Kodshim (even though he does bring the Korbanos) - from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser Sheini (which is not as stringent as Kodshim).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Kol ha'Yom' - which Rava initially interprets to mean that, when the Kohen Gadol was an Onan, they would even fetch him from his house to do the Avodah (making him even more lenient than the Tana Kama).

(a) If a Kohen who is bringing a Korban on the Mizbe'ach receives information that one of his relatives died, Rebbi Yehudah holds that he must stop immediately. Rebbi Yossi says that he first completes the Avodah with which he is busy before stepping down from the Mizbe'ach.

(b) So we see that Rebbi Yehudah is more *stringent* than his contemporaries with regard to the Dinim of Aninus (and not more *lenient*, as Rava first thought to explain 'Kol ha'Yom')?

(c) We therefore explain Rebbi Yehudah's 'Kol ha'Yom' to mean that the Kohen Gadol who is an Onan is forbidden to serve all day for fear that he may inadvertently eat the Korbanos with which he is working. The following night however, he is permitted to burn the Chalavim and the Emurim, since Aninus Laylah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.