Gittin

and we valued them at five maneh. When she presents herself to you, empower her to collect the rest.'  — R. Ashi said: The Get in that case was one given by a brother-in-law. RABBAN GAMALIEL THE ELDER MADE A REGULATION THAT SHE SHOULD TAKE A VOW, etc. R. Huna said: This rule applies only if she is not married again, but if she is married, she cannot take the vow. What is the reason why she cannot take it if she is married? Because her husband may annul it.  Even if she is not married, cannot the husband annul it when she marries again? — A husband cannot annul vows taken previously to his marriage with her.  But is there not a possibility that she may apply to a Sage  and obtain release from him? — R. Huna held that the particulars of the vow must be stated to the Sage.  R. Nahman held that even after the [second] marriage [she may take the vow]. But if she is married there is no question that the husband can annul the vow? — The vow must be taken by her in the presence of a company. An objection [against R. Huna's ruling] was raised [from the following]: If she has married again, she may recover her kethubah provided she has taken a vow. Does not this mean 'if she takes a vow now'? — No; it means, if she has taken a vow before [the second] marriage. But has it not been taught: 'If she marries again, she can take a vow and recover her kethubah'? — There is a difference on this point between Tannaim, since there is an authority who holds that a vow which has been taken in the presence of a company can be annulled, and there is an authority who holds that it cannot be annulled. The question was raised in the Academy: Is it necessary to state the particulars of the vow [on seeking annulment] or is it not necessary? — R. Nahman said that it is not necessary, R. Papa said that it is necessary. R. Nahman said that it is not necessary, because if you say that it is, it may happen that the applicant will not state the case fully  and the Sage will act on what he has been told.  R. Papa said it is necessary, to prevent forbidden things being done. We have learnt:  'If [a priest] marries a woman whom he should not,  he is disqualified [from participating in the Temple service] until he vows to have no benefit [from his wife]:'  and in this connection it was taught, he can take the vow and participate in the service and give the divorce when he descends.  Now if you say that it is not necessary to state particulars of the vow, is there not a possibility that he may apply to a Sage and obtain release?