A husband has the right to annul a vow that afflicts his wife or causes her sorrow (enuee nefesh-ענוי נפש). Daf TB Nedarim 82 presents an amoraic disagreement between Babylonia and the land of Israel when it comes to a multilayered vow. Shmuel from Babylonia will hold the position that once a husband annuls one side of the vow, the entire vow is annulled. On the other hand, Rabbi Yoḥanan from the land of Israel holds that the husband can only annul the side of the vow that causes her affliction or sorrow (enuee nefesh-ענוי נפש). The case under discussion concerns a vow over two loaves of bread, one fresh and delicious to eat and the other stale and repulsive to eat.

“Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a case where a woman vowed that two loaves are forbidden to her, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, as it is a fine-quality loaf, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, as it is a poor-quality loaf, then, since the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, like any other vow of affliction (enuee nefesh-ענוי נפש), he can also nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself.” (Sefaria. org translation) In other words, Shmuel holds that her entire vow is annulled while Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that she may eat the good loaf of bread, but the bad loaf of bread is still under the ban of her vow.

The Ron explains their both positions based on the verse " (Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial may...) annulled by her husband  אִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ- (Numbers 30:14)”Shmuel understands the verb annulled (יְפֵרֶנּוּ) comes to teach us that the total vow is annulled. Rabbi Yoḥanan qualifies the verb annulled (יְפֵרֶנּוּ) by saying that the husband only can totally annul the portion of the vow that is under his jurisdiction to annul i.e. (enuee nefesh-ענוי נפש).

Rashi explains their positions differently. If you remember, we learned that once part of a vow is dissolved (התרת נדרים) by a Sage, the entire vow is dissolved. Shmuel says the same principle holds when a husband annuls a vow (הפרת נדרים). Once the husband annuls part of a vow, the entire vow is annulled. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the sage’s ability to dissolve a vow is much stronger than the husband’s ability to annul the vow; consequently, the husband can only annul the portion of the vow concerning the affliction (enuee nefesh-ענוי נפש).

Today’s daf TB Nedarim 83 brings three case studies saying whether Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position is tenable. Each time the Gemara says that the case under discussion is not comparable to the two loaves of bread. The disagreement stands without resolution in the Gemara. Nevertheless, we poskin like Rabbi Yoḥanan. We can surgically divide the multilayered vow into two separate parts. (Mishneh Torah, the Laws of Vows, chapter 12, halahka 6; Shulkan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 234:63.)