Nedarim 10:8 - 11:1

הפרת נדרים – as the Torah stated (Numbers 30:9): “But if her husband restrains her on the day that he learns of it, [he thereby annuls her vow which was in force or the commitment to which she bound herself.”

כל היום – until it gets dark, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “[But if her father restrains her] on the day he finds out (literally, “hears it”). But as it is written (Numbers 30:15): “[If her husband offers no objections] from that day to the next, [he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed],” it is necessary, that you don’t say, yes, in the daytime, but now at night, we hold (Numbers 30:15): “from that day to the next/"מיום אל יום" – for sometimes he has the time to annul [her vows] during the period of twenty-four astronomical hours/"מעת לעת", as, for example, if she took a vow at the beginning of the night.

ויש בדבר להקל ולהחמיר – meaning to say, sometimes when he can annula them within a short time and sometimes within a longer time.

נדרה בלילי שבת – this that it (i.e., the Mishnah) took/used the phrase "בלילי שבת"/”on Friday nights” to teach us that we annul vows on Shabbat (see Tractate Shabbat, Chapter 24, Mishnah 5), and even not for the need of the Sabbath. But the Sage does not release [from vows] on Shabbat other than vows that are for the needs of the Sabbath, and even though he had the free time while it was still day, he can release for the needs of the Sabbath.

שאם לא הפר וחשכה אינו יכול להפר – for there is no absolution of vows during the period of twenty-foru astronomical hours unless she vowed from the beginning of the night. But regarding absolution for cause, it has no affect until he says, "מופר לך"/”you are annulled,” like the language of Scripture, for the absolution of the husband is from now and into the future without reason, like (Genesis 17:14): “[And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin;] he has broken My covenant.” But the Sage who states, “you are permitted” there is no vow here, and there is no oath here which uproots the vow from its essence. But if the Sage stated in the language of הפרה/absolution and the husband in the language of התרה/permission, he is not permitted and he is not absolved (see Talmud Nedarim 77b). But if he (i.e., the husband) said: “if you did not vow, I put you under the influence of a vow,” his words are fulfilled, and he does not have to state that they are fulfilled to you, since for even if he kept silent all of the entire day, the vow is fulfilled, for any speech is also fulfilling. But on Shabbat, he should say [to the woman]: “take, eat; take drink,” and he doesn’t absolve in the manner that he states on weekdays, for the vow is nullified on its own. But if he is unable to force her, he annuls it in his heart, and he doesn’t need to release it from his lips. And specifically, nullification such as “take it, eat,” where he forces her to violate her vow is effective if he thought in his heart even though he did not release it from his lips, but absolution In which he does not force her to violate the vow, he needs to release it from his lips, and it is not sufficient if he nullified it in his heart.

ואלו נדרים – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 80b) it explains that vows and oaths are taught, that in the language of the Sages, oaths are within the category of vows.

אם ארחץ ואם לא ארחץ – this is what it said: “the benefit of washing is forbidden upon me forever if I shall wash today,” behold this is a vow. “If I shall not wash, an oath that I shall not wash,” behold this is an oath. And similarly, “if I shall adorn myself, the benefit of adorning/dressing is forbidden upon me forever if I adorn myself today,” “if I don’t adorn myself,” is an oath that I will not adorn myself.

אמר ר"י אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש (vows referring to privation of the necessities of life) – regarding the vow alone Rabbi Yossi disputes the first Tanna/teacher, and [when he] states that the benefit of washing is forbidden upon me if I shall wash today,” this is not a vow of privation of the necessities of life, for behold, it is possible for her that she will not wash today and that the benefit of washing won’t be forbidden upon her forever. But the prevention/refraining from washing for one day is not a privation of the necessities of life, for a neglected appearance for one day (by not bathing) is not considered self-neglect (see Tractate Nedarim 80a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi. But whether the father or the husband, vows of privation of the necessities of life are ones that are absolved, as it is written (Numbers 30:17): “[These are the laws that the LORD enjoined upon Moses] between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter [while in her father’s household by reason of her youth],” there is an analogy between two laws that rest on a biblical intimation of the father to the husband. Just as the husband does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life, so also the father does not absolve anything other than vows of privation of the necessities of life. But Maimonides made the legal determination that the father absolves all vows and oaths, even those that are not referring to privation of the necessities of life, as it states (Numbers 30:6): “none of her vows or self-imposed obligations [shall stand].”