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].”

אם לא היתה פרנסתו אלא ממנו – that he believes in him until he will earn enough and will repay him.

הרי זה יפר דברי ר' יוסי – Rabbi Yossi, according to his reasoning who holds that the husband does not absolve every vow that has in it privations of the necessities of life, since he distinguishes between greater privation and lesser privation and between privation for a lengthy period of time to that of a short period of time, but all of the Mishnayot of this chapter go according to him and are not Halakha. Rather, the husband annuls/absolves all vows that have in them privations of the necessities of life, whether of one day and even one hour, whether for a lengthy period of time, whether the privation is great or whether the privation is small, and similarly absolves vows and oaths in matters that are between him and her, even though they are not privations of the necessities of life, as, for example, if she took an oath or a vow not to paint her eyelids or not to adorn herself. And similarly, if she vowed that she would not eat from the produce of this province, the husband annuls/absolves, for it is troublesome for him to bring her produce from another province, and these are things between him and her. But what is the difference between vows and oaths that are between him and her to vows and oaths that have in them privations of the necessities of life? Vows and oaths that have in them privations of the necessities of life he absolves/annuls for himself and for others, as for example, if she took a vow that she would not eat meat or drink wine, he absolves her and she is permitted ot eat and to drink and even after she becomes a widow or a divorcee and marries another [man]. But vows and oaths that are between him and her, as, for example, if she forbade upon herself sexual intercourse of every man in the world, or that she wouldn’t ever paint her eyelids or adorn herself, he absolves his part, and she would perform her marital duty and paint her eyelids and adorn herself all the time that she is under him , and when she is widowed or divorced, she would be forbidden in engaging in sexual relations with all men and to paint her eyelids and to adorn herself And so forth in a similar manner.

קונם שאיני נהנית לבריות אינו יכול להפר – this is not from the vows of privations of the necessities of life, for behold she is able to support herself from that of her husband, for the husband is not included in the category of בריות/humanity. But our Mishnah is also according to Rabbi Yossi, and it is not the Halakha, as I have explained above (see the Bartenura commentary to Mishnah 2). And not only/needless to say, if she said, “KONAM, that I will not benefit from anyone,” that she forbids the benefit of all of humanity upon her, that he absolves her because according to the Sages, these are vows of privation of the necessities of life, but even if she said, “KONAM, that I will not benefit from this certain individual,” that she only forbade for herself the benefit of that person alone the husband absolves [the vow] because of matters between him and her, for it is trouble for him that she will not benefit from that person, and the Torah stated (Numbers 30:17): “Between a man and his wife,” everything that is between a man and his wife, the husband can absolve/annul.

ויכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה – this is what it says, and furthermore, another reason that “KONAM that I don’t benefit from humanity,” that the husband does not annul, for she can benefit from gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, that she doesn’t benefit from anyone, for these are the gifts to the poor, and it is found that there is no privations of the necessities of life.

קונם כהנים ולוים נהנים לי – for just as that “KONAM that I don’t benefit from anyone,” but she is permitted [to benefit from] the gifts to the poor, so also, he who makes a vow against Kohanim and Levites from benefitting from his property are permitted to the gifs of the priesthood and the Levitical class.

קונם שאיני עושה על פי אבא – [It will be prohibited like] being dedicated to the Temple all what I do from coming [to work] for Father, meaning to say, that Father will not be able to benefit from the work of my hands.

אינו יכול להפר – this is not one of the matters between him and her, and in this everyone agrees that she prohibits her benefit upon a particular person, the husband cannot absolve it. And such is the Halakha.

על פיך אינו צריך להפר – because she is subjugated to him and even though that [stating that] something is dedicated to the Temple removes it from subjugation, the Rabbis strengthened her subjugation to the husband for [the use of] KONAM does not release from his subjugation.

יפר שמא תעדיף עליו יותר מן הראוי לו (let him annul it lest she place a burden upon him more than is appropriate for him) – since [the vow] of dedicating something to the Temple takes effect on the excess part which is not under his subjugation, therefore, he must annul/absolve [her vow], and the absolution is effective for him because this is a matter that is between him and her, for it is impossible that the surplus will not be mixed in with that of her husband.

רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר יפר שמא יגרשנה – and the essence/principal of her handiwork requires absolution lest he divorce her and her husband’s subjugation will be released, and then the vow will take effect and she will be forbidden from returning to him. And the Halakah is according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. But when she says, “May my hands be sanctified to their Maker (i.e., God), her hands are already in existence and the dedication to the Temple takes effect.

הרי זה יחזור ויפר – for it is an errant absolution is not an absolution until he intends regarding the woman that vowed, as it is written (Numbers 30:12): “[And her husband learns of it, yet offers no objection-] thus failing to restrain her – [all her vows shall stand and all her self-imposed obligations shall stand],” until the abolution will be for herself of the person making the vow. And also, that he should intend to the vow that she made (Numbers 30:5): “and her father learns of her vow,” until he knows which vow that she made.

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.

ובלבד שלא יהא לבעליך רשות בהם – and his condition is fulfilled, and the husband did not acquire it (i.e., the money). But even though this that this present saves im from the the troubler, for behold, his wife is supported/fed from these monies, but her sustenance was upon him, hs being saved from the trouble is not considered benefit.

ונדר אלמנה וגרושה – for itself, it does not require a [verse from] Scripture, for since she doesn’t have a husband, who will annul/absolve [her vow? But rather, when she made a vow when she is a widow for a time, and the time for the vow didn’t arrive until she married.

אינו יכול להפר – even though that the vow takes effect when she is under him, for we follow/go after the time of the vow.

נדרה בו ביום גרשה בו ביום והחזירה בו ביום – and aftwerards, he heard about her vow.

אינו יכול להפר – since she left to her own domain, between the vow and its absolution, for the husband does not absolve things that precede [him].

תשע נערות נדריהן קימים – not specifically lasses/young women.

בוגרת והיא יתומה – who married and her husband died when she was a young woman/lass, and she is an orphan in her father’s lifetime for after she married, her father does not have domain over her, when she became an adult woman/reached maturity afterwards and made a vow, her vow is upheld, for the father is not able to absolve her vow when she is an adult woman/reached maturity, and furthermore, she is an orphan during her father’s lifetime.

נערה ובגרה והיא יתומה – that she married and her husband died. Hat she made a ow when she was a young woman and she reached maturity after this ,and she is an orphan in her father’s lifetime, as I explained.

נערה – [a young woman/lass] at the time that she made a vow. She didn’t reach maturity/become an adult woman as yet, and she is an orphan in the lifetime of her father. And these three: orphan girl during her father’s lifetime are measurements for them.

בוגרת ומת אביה – that at the hour/time that she vowed, she was an adult woman/reached maturity, and her father died, that is an actual orphan.

נערה ובוגרת וכו' – and these three also, her father’s passing is measured/generalized to them.

נערה שמת אביה ומשמת אביה בגרה כו' – these three [things] that they taught, her having reached maturity/become an adult woman is measured to them, But in the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 89b) we stated, that the Sages did not teach any other than three young women: an adult woman/who reached maturity, an orphan, and an orphan during her father’s lifetime.

ור"י אומר כו' – that since she entered the marriage canopy, she left/departed from the domain of her father, through these marriages.

קונם שאינ נהנית לאבא ולאביך כו' הרי זה יפר – for since she was forvidden to the venefit of her father and his father through the fact that she works for her husband, it is a disgrace to the husband for these are matters between him and her.

האומרת טמאה אני לך – we are speaking of the wife of a Kohen, that is forbidden to her husband through unavoidable acci and she does not lose her Ketubah [settlement]. And the Sages believed her to forbid herself upon her husband, and since she leaves [the marriage] with a Jewish bill of divorce, she takes her Ketubah [settlement], that from the document of her Ketubah we will learn, that when you get married to another [man], take what is written for you.

השמים ביני ובינך – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 91a) that [his] spermatic emission which does not permeate (i.e., shoot forth) like an arrow, that is to say, that things that are before heaven are revealed and she cannot verify them. And we are speaking of when she comes on account of a claim that she stated, that I require a staff for the hand and a master for the grave (which Rashi explains that the staff is for her to lean on in her old age and she dies, he will bury her) for it if is not this, we say to her, go, you do not have marital connection with “being fruitful and multiplying” (see Genesis 1:28 and 9:7 – as it is the male’s prerogative only).

נטולה אני מן היהודים – that she forbade sexual connection of all Israelites upon her. But even though we stated in the chapter [Tractate Ketubot, chapter 7; Talmud Ketubot 71a] “He who prohibits his wife by vow from deriving benefit from him,” where she vowed and she is divorced without a Ketubah [settlement] and she placed her finger between her teeth, Rashi explained in [Tractate] Yevamot [112a] since she prohibited the benefit of sexual intercourse of all Israelites upon her, she is certainly a victim of unfortunate circumstance, for sexual intercourse is difficult for her. And the earlier version of the Mishnah held that even things are that are between him and her don’t exist, and it is possible that he can divorce her.

חזרו לומר כו' – that the generations were corrupted and they suspected that she is lying to release her from under her husband.

תביא ראיה לדבריה – and we don’t believe her without proof.

יעשו דרך בקשה – they would request from her that she not speak any further to him, but in the Jerusalem Talmud it explains, “let them make a meal [together] and let him appease her.

יפר חלקו ותהא משמשתו – and these are things between him and her and he will absolve it to himself.