Responsa for Yevamot 60:7
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> וכולן שהיו בהן קדושין או גרושין בספק הרי אלו הצרות חולצות ולא מתייבמות כיצד ספק קדושין זרק לה קדושין ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה זהו ספק קדושין
if, however, he is of the same opinion as Raba who said, 'Both statements may in fact represent the views of one Tanna, it being a case of "this and there is no need to state that"',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 65, n. 14 and cf. p. 65, n. 12, so that even if marriage of the stranger took place prior to the divorce of the other, the former, after divorce had taken place, is permitted, even according to the Tanna of our Mishnah. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> what does THIS IS exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the levirate marriage is permitted in both these cases. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Had the witnesses seen the ring fall into Leah's lap, she would need a divorce in spite of her claim that she never intended to become A's wife and that she was joking when she asked him to betroth her. For we would, then, be concerned only with facts and not with her thoughts and unexpressed intentions. But, since the witnesses did not see the ring fall into Leah's lap, and the yard where the incident took place did not belong to Leah, she needs no divorce, for no betrothal took place. R. Meir adds: If my teachers agree with my decision, all will be well. But if they do not agree I shall subscribe to whatever they decide to do. However, I should prefer not to be strict in this matter and not to require Leah to obtain a divorce, lest A become rebellious and refuse to divorce her, and lest he travel to a distant land and thus render it impossible for the unfortunate woman ever to marry again.
This Responsum is addressed to: "My teacher Rabbi Haim and his court."
SOURCES: Pr. 993: Mord. Git. 451; ibid. Kid. 548: Tesh. Maim. to Nashim. 1.