נדרים י״א:ו׳ - י״א:ז׳

קיים לתאנים כולו קיים כו' (he confirmed the vow regarding figs, the whole is deemed confirmed) – and the reason, as it is written (Numbers 30:14): “[Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial] may be upheld by her husband [or annulled by her husband,” he will uphold from it, that when he upholds part of it, he upholds all of it. But, (ibid.,) “annulled [by her husband],” one cannot expound as such, for it is not annulled until he annuls all of it. But these are the words of an individual opinion, and is not Halakha, but the Halakha is according to the Sages who sate that one makes an analogy on the principle common in both, making an analogy between הקמה/upholding and הפרה/nullifying/absolving. Just as regarding absolution, what he absolved, he absolved, and what he didn’t absolve, he didn’t absolve, for there is no expounding from annulling/יפרנו (Numbers 30:14), partial annulment, even upholding – what he upheld heupheld, and what he didn’t uphold, he didn’t uphold, and from יקימנו/upheld [by her husband] (Numbers 30:14),also, we don’t expound partial upholding, but it is the manner of Scripture to write like this. But even though the declaring permitted by a Sage we state that a vow that was partially permitted, all of it was permitted, but the absolution of the husband and the father is not like this.

איני יודע שיש מפירין – that I have permission to absolve [a vow].

יפר – on the day that it becomes known to him that he has permission to absolve [vows], it is upo him like (Numbers 30:13): “the day that he finds out.”

אינו יודע שזה נדר – and it requires absolution.

רבי מאיר אומר לא יפר for since he knows that he has in his hand [the ability] to absolve, even though he doesn’t know that it is a vow, nevertheless, he should have absolved/nullified [the vow]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.