Before us is Mishnah 4 in chapter 11 of Tractate Nedarim, which deals with a woman who takes a vow concerning the work of her hands, and with the question of in which cases the husband may annul her vow, and in which cases the vow does not take effect at all.
A vow forbidding the work of her hands to her relatives:
The Mishnah opens with a woman who says: "Konam she'eini osah al pi abba" - she forbids by vow every activity and product of her labor, so that her father will not be able to benefit from it, neither to eat nor to derive any benefit from anything she produces. The same law applies to the other formulations:
"Al pi avicha" - her husband's father, her father-in-law.
"Al pi achi" - her own brother.
"Al pi achicha" - her husband's brother.
In each of these cases the husband cannot annul the vow, and there are two reasons for this: there is no affliction of the soul here, since the vow causes her no hardship whatsoever; and it is not a matter between him and her, since the vow has no bearing on the relationship between her and her husband.
"She'eini osah al picha" - a vow directed at the husband:
The next case is a woman who says to her husband "she'eini osah al picha" - she forbids to him anything she does or produces, so that he will not be able to eat of it or derive benefit from it. Regarding this the Mishnah rules: "eino tzarich lehafer" - the husband need not annul it at all, since the vow does not take effect and has no force from the outset: the woman is obligated to her husband, and within the framework of the marriage she is bound to benefit him with the work of her hands, and she has no power to forbid to him that which is already pledged to him.
Rabbi Akiva: holds "yafer" - the husband must annul it, out of concern "lest she produce more for him than is required of her." The Mishnah in Tractate Kesubos details the measure of labors that a woman is obligated to perform within the marriage; beyond that measure she is not obligated, and that additional amount is not pledged to the husband. It follows that if she works and produces more than is required of her, her vow will take effect on that surplus and she will be able to forbid it to him. Because of this concern Rabbi Akiva rules that the husband must annul the vow.
The first Tanna: even that surplus and that additional amount are pledged to the husband, and she has no power to forbid them to him, and therefore no annulment is needed.
Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri: he too holds that the husband must annul the vow, but for a different reason: lest he divorce her. If they were to be divorced, she would no longer be obligated to him, and at that moment the vow would take effect "u'tehei asurah alav" - and she would be forbidden to him. And thus, if they should later wish to remarry one another, the opportunity would not be available to them, since her vow would take effect and forbid him to benefit from the work of her hands and from any activity of hers.
In summary: in this Mishnah we learned that a vow forbidding the work of her hands to her father, to her father-in-law or to her brother is not subject to annulment, since it involves neither affliction of the soul nor a matter between him and her. By contrast, regarding a vow forbidding the work of her hands to her husband, the first Tanna holds that no annulment is needed at all, since she is obligated to him; Rabbi Akiva requires annulment out of concern that she may produce more for him than is required of her, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri requires annulment out of concern that he may divorce her and she would then become forbidden to him.