Numbers 30:14

To mortify herself by abstinence or other bodily exercise.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day today,.... Said not one word to her day after day, neither on the day he heard her vow, nor the day following:

then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her; by his silence:

he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her, in the day that he heard them; for not to contradict them was to confirm them.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

It. The Rabbins restrain this law to fasting and abstinence. But the Hebrew seems more general, (ver. 13,) "every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may ratify or annul." The vows of abstinence are most common, and generally more disagreeable to husbands. (Calmet) --- St. Augustine (q. 59,) thinks it unreasonable that the husband should have a control over the vows of continency in his wife, any more than she could have over him, in this particular, as their rights are equal: he seems inclined to allow him to annul the vows of abstinence only. Indeed this seems to be the meaning of afflicting the soul, which is done by submitting to various restraints, required on days of fasting. See Leviticus xxiii. 27. (Haydock) --- In things which could nowise hurt the parent or husband, many believe, that the person who had made a vow, was bound to perform it secretly, even though the superior had declared his dissent. But with respect to fasting, pilgrimages, &c., which could not be performed without his knowledge, it does not seem that they were under any farther obligation, even though the superior should retract what he had connived at for a whole day. In doubtful cases inferiors must not refuse to obey. The sin lies at the door of him who exercises his authority in an improper manner. (Lyranus) (Tirinus) (ver. 16.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

כל נדר וכל שבעת אסר וגו׳ EVERY VOW AND EVERY BINDING OATH [TO AFFLICT THE SOUL HER HUSBAND MAY CONFIRM IT OR HER HUSBAND MAY ANNUL IT] — Because it states that a husband may annul his wife’s vows, one might think that all vows are implied! It therefore states: “[every vow] …to afflict the soul” — he may annul only vows to afflict the soul, and these are set forth in Treatise Nedarim 79b.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

EVERY VOW, AND EVERY BINDING OATH TO AFFLICT THE SOUL, [HER HUSBAND MAY ESTABLISH IT, AND HER HUSBAND MAY MAKE IT VOID]. “Since He had said [in the preceding verses] that a husband may annul [his wife’s vows], I might think that this includes all her vows! Scripture therefore says, to afflict the soul, meaning that he can only annul vows which afflict the soul, and they are explained in Tractate Nedarim.” These are the words of Rashi. But his language here is [too] concise, because a husband annuls vows which afflict the soul, such as [if she vows] “The fruits of the world be forbidden to me,” or even if she [only] vowed that she would not taste one of all the kinds [of fruits]; and likewise he may annul matters [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, even if they do not involve affliction of the soul, such as [if she swore] “I will not paint [my eyes]” or “I will not put powder on my face,” or “I will not have sexual intercourse,” these being matters about which He said, between a man and his wife, as is explained in the last chapter of Tractate Nedarim. Such is also the law with respect to the father himself, as we have been taught in the Sifre: 155. “I only know that a husband may annul vows [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, and vows which afflict the soul, [to the exclusion of other vows which he may not annul]. Whence do I know that the father [is similarly limited in his rights]? You can reason [in the following manner] etc… But I have not succeeded in establishing [the father’s law] by reason. Therefore Scripture says: These are the statutes, which the Eternal commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter. [This teaches us that] we must of necessity compare the father to the husband, sothat just as the husband may only annul vows [which concern the relationship] between himself and his wife, and matters which involve affliction of the soul, so also the father may only annul matters [which concern the laws] between him and her, and matters which involve affliction of the soul.” It is also taught in this way in the Gemara Yerushalmi of Tractate Nedarim.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.