Gemara

(Mishnah): If a man told his wife (Leah) 'all vows that you will make from now until I return from Ploni (a certain place) are affirmed', this has no effect;

R. Eliezer says, if he says 'they are annulled', they are annulled;

Chachamim say, they are not.

R. Eliezer: If he can annul vows that were already were Chal, all the more so, he can annul vows that were not yet Chal!

Chachamim: "Her husband will affirm it, her husband will annul it" - only a vow that can be affirmed (i.e. has already taken effect) can be annulled.

79a (Mishnah): A vow of affliction may be annulled, e.g. 'if I will wash, or not.'

R. Yosi: This is not a vow of affliction. Rather, if she said 'Peros of the world are forbidden to me', he can annul.

Question: If she said 'Peros of the world are forbidden to me if I wash', why can he annul? She can avoid washing, and she can eat!

Answer: Rather, she said 'the pleasure of washing is forbidden to me if I bathe.' He can annul this, for it will cause affliction. If she washes (once), she cannot wash again. If she does not wash, she will become repulsive!

88b (Mishnah): "The vow of a widow or divorcee will stand" applies to a single girl who vowed to be a Nezirah after 30 days. Even if she married within the 30 days, her husband cannot annul the vow.

If she vowed while married, he can annul her vow.

If she said 'I will be a Nezirah after 30 days' (and her husband annulled the vow), even if she was widowed or divorced in the 30 days, the vow is annulled.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): If a woman vowed 'I will be a Nezirah when I get divorced' and she was divorced, her husband cannot annul the vow;

R. Akiva says, he can.

(Rav Chisda): Our Mishnah is like R. Akiva.

Objection (Abaye): Our Mishnah can even be like R. Yishmael! In the Mishnah, the vow is contingent on days (it will be Chal in 30 days). Since the days could expire before she gets married or divorced, R. Yishmael agrees that her status (married or single) at the time determines whether or not it may be annulled;

In the Beraisa, the vow is contingent on marriage.

89b (Mishnah): If a woman told her husband 'I may not benefit from my or your father if I benefit you'; or, 'I may not benefit from you if I benefit my or your father', he can annul it.

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Noson): If she said 'I may not benefit from my or your father if I benefit you', he cannot annul this;

Chachamim say, he can annul.

A man forbade himself to benefit from the world if he marries before learning. He tried, but was unable to learn. Rav Acha bar Rav Huna tricked him into marrying, then brought him to Rav Chisda to permit his vow.

Rava: Rav Acha is brilliant! He holds that Chachamim and R. Noson also argue about Heter of a Chacham, like they argue about Hafarah. (Therefore, he had to make the vow be Chal before it could be permitted.)

(Rav Papi): They argue only about annulment.

Rishonim

The Rif and Rosh (10:7) bring the Mishnah (75b).

The Rif brings the Mishnah and Beraisa (89b).

Rambam (Hilchos Nedarim 12:12): A father or husband can annul before the vow is Chal, before she is forbidden. If she said 'wine will be forbidden to me if I go to Ploni (a place)', he can annul even before she goes and is forbidden.

Rambam (13:9): If a man told his wife or daughter 'all vows that you will take from now until I return from Ploni are affirmed' or 'they are annulled', this has no effect.

Rosh (11:6): The Halachah follows Chachamim against R. Noson, for they are the majority. Also, we follow a Stam Mishnah against an argument in a Beraisa. Rava praised Rav Acha for enabling Hatarah according to R. Noson, but this does not show that the Halachah follows R. Noson. He praised him for fulfilling all opinions. Rabanan (after the Gemara) rule like Rav Papa, that they argue only about Hafarah!

Ran (90a DH ul'Inyan): Also, R. Akiva (89a, who allows Hafarah of a vow to be a Nezirah after divorce) surely holds like Chachamim.

Ran (80a DH v'Rebbi and 90a DH Mihu): Our Sugya is unlike R. Noson, who allows Hafarah only after the vow is Chal. The Gemara asked 'why can he annul? She can avoid washing, and she can eat!' It held that not washing for a day is not Inuy, and she can be careful about it. Even Chachamim allow Hafarah only when the Tanai is a matter of Inuy Nefesh or between him and her, or something that she is prone to transgress, e.g. not working for his or her father. This would pain her, so it is as if she already did so.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (YD 234:28): A father or husband can annul only after she vows. They can annul even if the vow did not be Chal yet, even not in front of her.

Rema: Some allow only if the vow depends on time, and it will be Chal automatically. If it depends on an action, he cannot annul until it is Chal.

Source: R. Yerucham Sof Nesiv 27, cited in Beis Yosef DH u'Mah she'Chosav Aval.

Shach (45): The Beis Yosef and Rema did not explain fully. In Sa'if 69, the Shulchan Aruch allows immediate Hafarah even for a vow dependent on an action! R. Yerucham allows Hafarah if the vow is contingent on a matter of Inuy Nefesh or between him and his wife, e.g. '...if I will not work for you.' However, if she said 'wine will be forbidden to me if I go to the place Ploni', he cannot annul until it is Chal, even though the vow itself is Inuy Nefesh. This is unlike 'wine will be forbidden after 30 days', in which it becomes forbidden automatically. The Rambam allows immediate Hafarah even in this case. This is mid'Oraisa, so we should be stringent. The Ran is lenient also when she is prone to transgress the Tanai. Even though R. Yerucham did not make this distinction, we may be lenient about this, for the Rambam and other Poskim permit in every case.

Shulchan Aruch (69): If a woman said 'I will not benefit from my father or your father if I work for you'; or 'I may not benefit from you if I work for my or your father', he can annul it, even though the vow did not be Chal yet. These are matters between him and her.

Teshuvas Rosh Yosef (7, cited by R. Akiva Eiger): If a woman took a vow to be Chal on day Ploni, and her husband heard it but did not annul until that day, it seems that it is annulled. If a single girl vowed to be a Nezirah after 30 days, a new husband who married her within the 30 days cannot annul it. If an existing husband cannot annul on day 30, why did the Mishnah teaches about a new husband?! However, the Ran (89a DH Afilu) says that R. Yishmael holds that Hafarah depends on the Chalos only when she stipulated that it will be Chal after she changes Reshus. It seems that when the vow will surely be Chal, it is as if it already was Chal. The Mishnah 88b teaches the Chidush that even a new husband cannot annul. One might have thought that the day he married her is like the day he heard.

Bach (46 DH u'Mah she'Chosav Af Al Pi): A husband can annul before a vow is Chal (unlike a Chacham) because he can annul only on the day he hears.