Resources for Yevamos daf 58
1. Theגמרא brings a proof about יש חופּה לפּסולות from the case of a שומרת יבם. It says that even a שומרת יבם who is פּסולה (because she was נסתרה) and is נכנסה לחופּה ולא נבעלה drinks the מי סוטה which proves יש חופּה לפּסולות. From that proof we see that the discussion of יש חופּה לפּסולות is not limited to whether a woman who never had קידושין and only had חופּה can eat תרומה. Rather, it also encompasses whether חופּה after a regular קידושין works. Based on this, there is an important question of the לחם משנה from the ר"ן on the רמב"ם in הלכות אישות פּרק י׳ הל׳ ב. Theרמב"ם says there that a חופּת נדה is not valid since she is not ראויה לביאה. The ר"ן asks how can the רמב"ם say that when he paskens in הלכות תרומות פּרק ז׳ הל׳ כ"א that יש חופּה לפּסולות! That should mean that just because she is a נדה we shouldn’t invalidate her חופּה because חופּה works for פּסולות! The לחם משנה answers that נדה is different in that all other people who have a חופּה with someone who is פּסול to them intend to have a ביאה with them soon after the חופּה. However, generally speaking someone who had a חופּת נדה would have in mind to not do a ביאה until she becomes טהורה, so she is more “not ראויה לביאה” then any other ערוה. In his second מהדורא he gives a different answer: the only place we find the רמב"ם pasken יש חופּה לפּסולות is by הלכות תרומה to say that if a woman who is פּסול to a כהן has a חופּה with him, she can’t eat תרומה anymore. The לחם משנה suggests that perhaps the רמב"ם really holds that חופּה won’t work in a positive way to make a valid חופּה, but it is enough to make you פּסול from eating תרומה since that is a lower bar (like a יבם who disqualifies his שומרת יבם from eating תרומה but can’t be מאכיל her תרומה).
2. One of the great questions discussed on our דף is whether you need עדים for יבום. For a typical קידושין, you need עדים in order to make the קידושין valid (even if both agree that she accepted a ring from the man it isn’t a valid קידושין without עדים). The ראשונים and אחרונים discuss whether there is a similar requirement for the מצוה of יבום. The שלטי גבורים is quoted by the רמ"א in אבן העזר סימן קס"ו סעיף ב as saying that יבום needs witnesses. This is more explicitly in the בית שמואל there in ס"ק ב . However, the פּתחי תשובה in ס"ק ו quotes the נודע ביהודה and the ביאור הגר"א on that סעיף who bring a proof against the שלטי גבורים from our גמרא. The גמרא says that we can’t find a case where it was קדמה שכיבת בעל לבועל by a שומרת יבם where she would still be called a שומרת יבם since as soon as there is a ביאה with the בעל he is automatically fully קונה her and we wouldn’t call her a שומרת יבם anymore. The question is that if יבום doesn’t work without witnesses, you could just say the case is where he did a ביאה without witnesses and she is therefore still just a שומרת יבם! This is therefore a proof that a ביאה effectuates יבום under all circumstances. However, רע"א in שו"ת רע"א סימן צ"ד says that this isn’t necessarily a proof since there is a גזרת הכתוב that you need קדמה שכיבת בועל לבעל, so if there aren’t witnesses then ב"ד won’t force the wife to drink the סוטה water since we don’t believe that there was a ביאה that already happened from the בעל. Amazingly, the תשובות הרשב"א in חלק ד סימן שכ"ח was actually asked this exact ראיה and he said it is no proof from our גמרא since if you needed עדים for יבום then having a ביאה without עדים wouldn’t fulfill the requirement of קדמה שכיבת בעל since they wouldn’t be married and it wouldn’t be considered תחת אישך to give her the סוטה water. He nonetheless holds that יבום does not need עדים since it is a אשה שהקנו לה מן השמים.
Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya
Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview
Rabbi Yishai Rasowsky - Tosfos Synopsis