- "יקום על שם אחיו" – לנחלה
It was taught in a Baraisa: The passuk states: - מיכן שמצוה בגדול ליבם "והיה הבכור" – “And it shall be the firstborn,” from here we learn that it is mitzvah for the eldest to do yibum, "יקום על שם אחיו" – לנחלה – “shall be established on the name of his brother,” which refers to inheritance, which teaches that the one who does yibum inherits the entire estate of his brother. The Baraisa continues and asks, או אינו אלא לשם - that perhaps the passuk means what is says literally, that the son born to the yavam and yevamah should take the name of the deceased brother? For example, if the deceased was named Yosef, the child should be called Yosef? The Baraisa answers, that it says here, "יקום על שם אחיו" – “he shall be established by the name of the brother,” and it says that Yaakov told Yosef, "על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם" – “The names of their brothers shall they be identified regarding their inheritance”. The gezeirah shavah teaches that just as the “name” there refers to inheritance, to too the “name” here refers to inheritance. Rava said that even though throughout the entire Torah we follow the rule that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו – that a passuk never departs from its basic pshat, here the gezeirah shavah has come אפיקתיה מפשטיה לגמרי – and has entirely removed the passuk from its basic pshat.
- Why the Torah used the term “bechor”
After the Gemara goes through an exhaustive analysis on why the Torah identified the yavam as a bechor when the same dinim apply equally to the eldest brother who is not a bechor, it asks, בכור דקרייה רחמנא למאי הלכתא – regarding what halachah did the Torah mention bechor, when it could have said that the eldest brother should preferably do yibum? It answers that the term bechor was written לגריעותא – to diminish the yavam’s rights. מה בכור אינו נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק אף האי אינו נוטל בראוי כבמוחזק – Just as a bechor does not take a double portion in his father’s inheritance which are still yet to come to the father, like the assets that are currently in the possession of a living grandfather, so too the yavam who stands in the place of the deceased brother and takes a double portion in his father’s estate, he does not take an extra portion in the father’s assets which are still yet to come, like the ones that were already in the father’s possession.
- Question whether geirim who convert with ulterior motives are considered legitimate geirim
The next Mishnah teaches that if one was subject to rumors that he had relations with a gentile woman, and then she converted, he should not marry her, but if he did, אין מוציאין מידו – we do not require him to divorce her. The Gemara notes that this implies that the conversion is considered valid and brings a conflicting Baraisa that states: Whether a man converted to Judaism for the sake of a woman, or a woman converted for the sake of a man, וכן מי שנתגייר לשום שולחן מלכים – and similarly, if one converted in order to sit at the king’s table, or for becoming one of Shlomo Hamelech’s servants, they are not geirim. These are the words of Rebbe Nechemyah, for he would say: אחד גירי אריות ואחד גירי חלומות – Both those who converted because of lions, or because of being told to in a dream, or those who converted at the time of Mordechai and Esther, are not considered geirim until they convert in times when there is no ulterior motive. The Gemara answers that it was stated regarding this Baraisa that Rebbe Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name of Rav, that the halachah is in accordance with the one who says that these are all legitimate geirim. The Gemara will bring a Baraisa that teaches that in the future, during yemos HaMoshiach, we will not accept geirim, for it will be assumed that they are converting for ulterior motives. Similarly, they did not accept geirim during the time of Dovid or Shlomo.
