Megilat Rut’s account of yibbum sends an important message about yibbum, inheritance, and individuality. The Gemara (Yevamot 17b) states that maternal brothers (who cannot inherit one another) may not perform yibbum, indicating a strong link between yibbum and inheritance. Elsehwere, the Gemara (Yevamot 40a) rules that yibbum is performed even if the deceased bequeaths nothing to the yavam on account of penury or for other reasons, thereby uncoupling yibbum from inheritance. Moreover, the Rashba (Yevamot 108a) notes that the Gemara teaches these seemingly opposite ideas with a single phrase: yibbum b’nachalah talah rachmana. This is one of the uncommon homonym antonyms (words that sound alike, but have different or opposite meanings) that the Gemara employs to emphasize important concepts. What, exactly, is the Gemara trying to teach us about yibbum and inheritance?

The relationship between yibbum and inheritance is further complicated by the contrast of yibbum narratives in Megilat Rut and Sefer Devarim. R. Feivel Meltzer (Da’at Mikra, introduction to Megilat Rut) notes that both narratives involve removing a shoe, “upholding the deceased’s name,” and not allowing the deceased’s name to be erased or cut off. However, Megilat Rut emphasizes “upholding the deceased’s name on his inheritance,” and preventing the deceased’s name from being cut off “from the gate of his place,” while Sefer Devarim eschews these emphases. Moreover, Megilat Rut implies that yibbum occurs primarily in the wake of inheritance, as Boaz suggests first that Ploni Almoni redeem Rut’s field and only afterwards that he perform yibbum, while Sefer Devarim views inheritance as a side-effect or consequence of yibbum.

Seemingly in consonance with Megilat Rut, Rashi (Yevamot 17b) writes that since the yavam inherits his deceased brother’s property, only close heirs may perform yibbum. The Rashba (ibid.) asks: the yavam’s inheritance of his deceased brother indicates that inheritance is a consequence of yibbum, while the restriction of yibbum to close heirs indicates that inheritance is a prerequisite of yibbum; how can Rashi interchange these two distinct concepts?

The solution to these quandaries may be alluded to in the Talmudic formulation (117a) that the yavam inherits his deceased brother’s assets because “He has stood [for his brother’s name].” Yibbum does not directly cause  inheritance; rather, yibbum causes the two brothers’ family identities to mingle, and this mingling causes inheritance. Rashi ignores the distinction between consequence and prerequisite because both ideas underscore this essential fact: the yavam inherits because his family identity embraces the family identity of his deceased brother, and therefore only someone whose family identity has this flexibility may perform yibbum.

For this reason, too, inheritance plays a more central role in Megilat Rut than in Sefer Devarim. Megilat Rut describes a non-mitzvah yibum – between an uncle and his nephew’s wife. This yibbum does not naturally mingle the family identities, nor does it naturally result in inheritance. Boaz redeemed his nephew’s fields to imbue his marriage to Rut with this family-mingling character, enabling his descendants from Rut to perpetuate not only his own, but also his nephew’s name. In contrast, Sefer Devarim describes a yibbum shel mitzvah, between a brother and his brother’s wife, where the mingling of family identities occurs naturally and results automatically in inheritance.

Based on this, the homonym antonym of yibbum b’nachalah talah rachmana makes perfect sense. On one hand, yibbum is indeed bound to inheritance, since only close heirs can naturally embrace the deceased’s family identity within their own. Yet the absence of a legacy does not hinder performance of yibbum, since it is not inheritance per se, but rather family identity’s flexibility symbolized by potential to inherit, that is bound to yibbum shel mitzvah.

On Shavuot, we received the Torah and became “a nation of nobles.” Chazal’s statements that “Every Jew is a child of kings,” and “The crown of Torah is accessible to all” underscore this point. Yibbum, too, emphasizes that every individual is the potential founder of a dynasty, that every family identity is infinitely and uniquely valuable. Boaz’ selfless acquiescence to embrace his nephew’s family identity directly contrasts and perhaps atones for Onan’s selfish refusal to embrace his brother’s family identity, for refusal to realize that perpetuation of a brother’s dynasty is far more important than preservation of individuality. May Shavuot and Megilat Rut inspire us to live the lessons they teach.