Question: This Halachah will not be relevant until Mashi'ach comes! (Why should the Gemara rule about it?) Zevachim 45a and Sanhedrin 51b asked like this.

Answer #1: This is relevant even nowadays, if a leader appointed over the Tzibur stepped down due to Ones;

When the Ones passes, he returns to his position, and we show honor also to the one who substituted for him.

An example is the episode with R. Gamliel [who was deposed from being Nasi,] and R. Elazar ben Azaryah [who substituted for him].

Implied question: In Ta'anis (4b), R. Gamliel ruled that we request rain on the seventh of Cheshvan, and we established this to be when the Mikdash stands! (This is Hilchesa l'Meshicha.)

Answer #1: This is relevant even nowadays, for people [of Bavel,] who have Peros in the Midbar [even after Sukos, so they do not want rain immediately], like it says there.

Implied question: In Pesachim (66a), R. Akiva said that [when Erev Pesach is on Shabbos,] any Melachah [for Korban Pesach] that cannot be done before Shabbos is Docheh Shabbos, and we rule (69b) like him!

Answer #1: This is relevant regarding Bris Milah.

Implied question: Also regarding Milah, Rav Yehudah ruled like this in Shabbos (133a)! (Therefore, there was no need to rule like R. Akiva regarding Pesach.)

Answer #1: We rule like this in two places to strengthen the ruling about Milah.

Question: In Menachos (52a), we rules like R. Shimon and Aba Yosi ben Dostai regarding the Chavitei Kohen Gadol (his daily Minchah)!

Answer #1 (and Answer #2 to the above questions): The Gemara is not bothered by Hilchesa l'Meshicha. Only Rav Yosef asks this in Sanhedrin (51b) and Zevachim (45a);

The Gemara is not concerned for this. In Zevachim, it responded to Rav Yosef "if so, we should not teach Shechitas Kodshim!"

Answer #2 (R. Chaim Kohen): The Gemara asks only when it is both Hilchesa l'Meshicha, and an Aveirah. E.g. Zevachim discusses Pigul, and Sanhedrin discusses a Bas Kohen who was Mezanah;

Since there are both of these, it is not common [that people will transgress at the time of Mashi'ach]. We should not rule about a Hilchesa l'Meshicha that is not common at all.

Explanation: The Metaretz wanted to answer like we conclude, that he says to one wife "this is your Get on condition that your colleague (co-wife) does not die", and he says to the other "this is your Get on condition that I enter the Beis ha'Keneses";

The Ba'al ha'Shas ("narrator" of the Gemara) did not wait for him to conclude, and proceeded to be meticulous to explain his words, that he tells her "on condition that you die..."

I.e. [he asks] what Tenai can he make? If he tells her "on condition that you die...", perhaps she will not die, and he had two wives;

Rather, he tells her "on condition that you not die..." Also this we can challenge!

Until the conclusion is all from the Ba'al ha'Shas, who himself deduced the Perush of the answer that he divorces on condition.

He is able to establish it only like we conclude, that he tells one "on condition that your colleague does not die..."

Support: All the other suggestions "rather, he tells her" are from the Makshan. He analyzes through his questions until he reaches the truth.

All of them have the letter Dalet "Ela d'Amar...", and in the last, it says "Ela l'Chada he says 'on condition that I enter the Beis ha'Keneses.'"

Note: The prefix "Dalet" (which generally means "that") connotes that this is a suggestion.

Since the Makshan himself concluded this, and he will not question this, he said Ela l'Chada, and not Ela del'Chada, with a Dalet.

Implied question: The Gemara should have asked 'if so (she will die), why must he divorce her?'

Answer: We can say that [he says] 'on condition that you will die in the middle of the Avodah.' Therefore, he divorces her so he will not have had two wives at the time.

Implied question: Perhaps one of them will die, and the Get will take effect, and he had no wife!

Answer: The Gemara preferred to ask that perhaps neither will die, for this is more common.

Question #1 (Ri): In Gitin (83b), Rava taught that a Get "on condition that you will not drink wine all of (i.e. the rest of) my life" is not Kerisus (is invalid, for it does not totally separate). "... All Ploni's life" is Kerisus.

Citation (cont.) Objection: Presumably, "... all Ploni's life" is different, for perhaps he will die, and she fulfilled the Tenai [and need not observe it any longer]?

Citation (cont.): Also [when he said] "... all my life", perhaps he will die [and she need not observe it any longer]!

Citation (cont.) Correction: Rather, "all your life" is not Kerisus. "... All my life" or "... all Ploni's life" is Kerisus.

Summation of Question #1: Our Sugya is not like the Hava Amina there, and not like the conclusion!

Question #2 (Ri): Why do we say that if he stipulated only about the life of her colleague, it is a valid Get, but because he stipulated about her life or her colleague's wife, it is worse?

Answer: The Gemara adopted the initial and final expressions from there (Gitin 83b, even though we retracted from the initial expression);

We asked that Rava said "all my life", which is the initial expression there, and all the more so "all your life" is not Kerisus;

Explanation: Whether he said "all my life", like the initial expression there, or he said "all your life", like the conclusion there, it is not Kerisus;

Here is a case of "all your life." If so, this is a proper question according to all the versions there (i.e. also the conclusion).

Implied question: Had he said only "on condition that your colleague die", it would be a Get!

Answer: Now that he made it conditional also on her death, we can say that this is worse;

Whenever there is a Tenai that can be fulfilled in her death, and fulfillment of the Tenai and the Get will take effect in her death, this is not Kerisus.

Also here, if she dies first, fulfillment of the Tenai and the Get will take effect together when she dies.

Implied question: This is like when he said "on condition that your colleague die" [which is valid]!

Answer: [It is different. There,] when her colleague dies first, the Get takes effect in her life. If she dies first, the Get does not take effect.

Explanation: It seems that he said also this to her. This refers to the last matter said above;

We answered that he said "on condition that your colleague not die", and we asked "perhaps she will die in the middle of the Avodah"!

We answered that he tells both of them both expressions, "this is your Get on condition that your colleague not die", and also "on condition that your colleague die in the middle of the Avodah";

If [the Gemara means that] he said only "on condition that your colleague not die", it should have asked "perhaps she will not die, and he has two wives"! It is more common that neither dies, like I explained above (DH Al Menas she'Tamus);

Rather, you must say that he tells her both expressions.

Implied question: We already asked "perhaps she will not enter the Beis ha'Keneses"! (Also here, perhaps he will not enter!)

Answer #1: We asked only about her, for women are lazy. Kohanim are zealous. All the more so the Kohen Gadol is more zealous, and he will not forget.

Answer #2: Also, we are more concerned lest she forget, for she is not frequent here to see if her colleague will not die, and enter the Beis ha'Keneses. We do not lock her up!

Explanation: He tells the other "on condition that your colleague not die." Then there is no concern;

If the latter died in the middle of the Avodah, he enters the Beis ha'Keneses, and she was divorced retroactively, and he did not have two wives;

If neither dies, the first Get is valid, and he does not enter the Beis ha'Keneses.

If the first dies in the middle of the Avodah, since the second did not die, for we are not concerned for death of both, she is divorced retroactively, and he does not enter the Beis ha'Keneses.

However, if he would divorce only Leah, and say 'on condition that I enter the Beis ha'Keneses', and not say anything to Rachel, perhaps Rachel will die in the middle of the Avodah, and what he can he do [to be Machshir the Avodah]?

If he enters the Beis ha'Keneses, from now (the death of Rachel) and onwards, he has no wife;

If he does not enter the Beis ha'Keneses, he had two wives during part of the Avodah;

Therefore, there is no other solution.

Support: The words of the Gemara connote like this. It says "to one he says...", which implies that also to the other he said ["this is you Get"] and stipulated with her.

Another solution: The Yerushalmi connotes that we prepare another wife for him, that if his wife dies, he will be Mekadesh the other on Yom Kipur, unlike our Gemara;

It asks there that he should be Mekadesh on Erev Yom Kipur. This implies that the preparation [of another wife] is mere designation.

Citation (Yerushalmi) Answer: "V'Chiper Ba'ado u'Ve'ad Beiso" and on behalf of two houses.

Citation (cont.): This is like acquiring on Shabbos!

Citation (cont.): This (Kinyan on Shabbos) is Shevus (forbidden mid'Rabanan). Chachamim permitted it in the Mikdash (for needs of the Avodah).

Citation (cont.) (R. Chanina): This teaches that one who marries a widow [on Friday night] must enter [have Bi'ah with] her during the day, lest he acquire on Shabbos.

Assertion: It seems that when one has Chupah with a virgin during the day, from when she entered the Chupah, he totally acquired her, therefore Bi'ah is permitted on Shabbos;

Chupah does not apply a widow, and her husband acquires her to inherit her and become Tamei for her [if she dies] and annul her vows only through Bi'ah. Therefore, the Bi'ah must be during the day, lest it be like acquiring on Shabbos.

Suggestion: Perhaps Chupah applies to a widow before Bi'ah!

Answer: [Even if you will say so,] the seclusion with her is her Chupah. This should be done before Shabbos;

However, a virgin, once she left b'Hinuma (with a canopy of myrtle, or with a veil over her eyes), this is her Chupah. They used to do so during the day, but seclusion was only at night, close to the time of Bi'ah.

Consequence: [If so,] the Yerushalmi means that one who marries a widow must have seclusion during the day, for seclusion with her is her Chupah.

Conclusion: I prefer to say [like this,] that also a widow has Chupah before Bi'ah.

Application: One must be careful about what I said, that one who marries a widow must have seclusion Erev Shabbos, after the Berachos of Nisu'in.

Explanation: Now, if she dies in the middle of the Avodah, since she did not enter the Beis ha'Keneses, she is divorced retroactively, and he did not have two wives.

Observation: The text should not say "d'Lo Aila Hi", for since he did not say "on condition that your colleague not enter the Beis ha'Keneses', this connotes that he said to Leah "on condition that Rachel not die" and he said to Rachel "on condition that she (Rachel) herself not enter the Beis ha'Keneses.

If so, the Gemara asks like this. "Perhaps Rachel will not die, and not enter the Beis ha'Keneses!"

Had the text said "[d'Lo Aila] Hi", this would connote "perhaps Rachel, who is Leah's colleague, will not die, and she, i.e. Leah, will not enter!"

Implied question: Why regarding her it says "on condition that you not enter the Beis ha'Keneses", and regarding him it says "on condition that I [do] enter?"

Answer: He could not say about her "on condition that you enter" when she is healthy, for she may not enter, lest her colleague die, and then he had no wife;

When she is sick and about to die, she is unable to enter.

Implied question: He could have stipulated another Tenai, that they will bring her into the Beis ha'Keneses [which can be fulfilled when she is about to die]!"

Answer: In any case, his current Tenai [about a person himself entering] could not have been said oppositely;

Regarding him, it is fine. Since he can say "on condition that I enter", this is better than "on condition that I not enter", for we asked that he will be left without a wife;

Therefore, it is better to answer that he stipulates "on condition that I enter."

There is not so much concern lest he [forget and] do an action and enter, and be left without a wife. It is easy to understand this.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi explains that we discuss a Kohen Hedyot. He explained with difficulty according to this.

Tosfos' opinion: It seems that we discuss a Kohen Gadol.

Implied question: A Kohen Gadol may offer when he is an Onen!

Answer: This is mid'Oraisa. R. Yehudah holds that mid'Rabanan, he abandons the Avodah and leaves.

Support #1: Do not be astounded at this. We conclude that it is a decree lest he eat. This shows that even though mid'Oraisa he may offer the entire day, Chachamim decreed;

If so, we can say that also the Beraisa discusses a Kohen Gadol, and the law mid'Rabanan.

Support #2: Also, "he was offering" connotes even before he began the Avodah, just the Avodah is in his hand;

How could R. Yosi say that he finishes? If a Kohen Hedyot serves while he is an Onen, he profanes (disqualifies) the Avodah!

Support #3: The Tosefta in Zevachim says that if a Kohen Hedyot was offering and a relative died, he abandons the Avodah and leaves. No one argues;

In our Sugya, R. Yehudah and R. Yosi argue. We can say that they argue about a Kohen Gadol.

Explanation: The entire day, eating and offering are the same. Just like he may not eat, he may not offer;

Inference: At night, he may offer even though he may not eat. We do not decree lest he eat;

This is because Aninus of the night [after the burial] is only mid'Rabanan. It is itself is a decree, so we do not decree due to a decree!

Suggestion: Perhaps we could have answered that "the entire day" refers to the Isur to eat, and we infer that at night, he may eat!

Rejection: R. Yehudah holds (Zevachim 99b) that Aninus of the night after the day of death is mid'Oraisa, and Aninus [after] the day of burial [if it is not the day of death] is mid'Rabanan.

We conclude that [he may not offer] the entire day, but not at night (then he may offer). This refers to the day of burial;

It cannot refer to the day of death, for R. Yehudah holds (Zevachim 99b) that Aninus of the night after the day of death is mid'Oraisa. If so, surely he decrees [to forbid Avodah] lest he come to eat [just like he decrees during the day]