ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafYoma 13
(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
(b) Even Rebbi Yehudah does not contend with the possibility of *both* wives
(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
(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.
(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
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'.
(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
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
(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.
(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.
(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).
2. ... "Lo Achalti ve'Oni Mimenu" - that an Onan is not permitted to eat
(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
(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.