Question

Hello Rabbi Michi,
1. In chapter 9, regarding override and precedence between commandments, on page 227 in the paragraph "Transitivity Considerations," it says: Let us examine the words of the Ran… (applying the rule of Megillah > Temple service only with respect to precedence, but with respect to override the Temple service takes precedence. The other rules remain as usual) we get the following results regarding override: 
A. Temple service > Megillah (a reversal of rule 1 according to the Ran)
B. Megillah > Torah study (from rule 2)
C. Torah study > Temple service (from the rationale for rule 2)
I did not understand rule C. At the beginning of the chapter, after all, you formulated the rationale for rule 2 as follows: Temple service is more stringent than Torah study, and nevertheless it is overridden by Megillah. All the more so, the less stringent Torah study is overridden. 
And later it was brought that:  a neglected corpse > Megillah > Temple service > an individual’s Torah study.    And public Torah study stands somewhere before Temple service. But if in rules A, B, and C we are dealing with public Torah study, how did you determine that it ranks below Megillah? (And this cannot be proven from the story of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s academy, where they suspended Torah study for Megillah, since the Ran on 2b writes that public Torah study means the Torah study of all Israel, as in the time of Joshua, unlike Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s academy.)
2. On page 198, s.v. "Conditional Divorce," (Reuven divorced his wife on condition that she marry Shimon, and she went and married Levi, and afterward left Levi without a bill of divorce and married Shimon) your conclusion based on the principle of consistency is that she remains married to Reuven. But why not say that she is still married to Shimon? After all, it is still possible that he will divorce her in the future and then she will lawfully marry Levi, and Reuven’s divorce will be fulfilled.