Responsa for Yevamot 60:9
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ואילו בגרושין ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה לא קתני מאי
for then, THIS IS would exclude the case of one who died without first divorcing his wife;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And without marrying the stranger who would, nevertheless, be forbidden to the surviving third brother on account of the levirate bond. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> if, however, he holds the same view as R. Nahman,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no levirate bond exists. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> what would THIS IS exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In view of the fact that levirate marriage is permitted in all cases except one, where the second brother took the stranger in levirate marriage and did not divorce his wife, a case which was explicitly stated and required no expression like THIS IS to exclude it. ');"><sup>21</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.