Talmud for Nedarim 11:1
וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר, דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, אִם אֶרְחָץ וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחָץ, אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נָפֶשׁ:
And these are the vows that he annuls [The gemara explains that vows and oaths are intended; for in the language of the sages oaths are included in vows.]: things which entail affliction, viz.: "If I bathe" and if "I shall no bathe,"; "If I adorn myself," and if "I shall not adorn myself." [i.e., "The pleasure of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe today" — this is a vow. "Shevuah, that I shall not bathe" — this is an oath. And, similarly, "if I adorn myself," viz.: "The pleasure of adornment is forbidden to me forever if I adorn myself today." "and if "I shall not adorn myself,'" viz.: Shevuah, that I shall not adorn myself."] R. Yossi said: These are not vows of affliction. [R. Yossi differs with the first tanna only in respect to vows alone, saying that "The pleasure of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe today" is not a vow of affliction; for it is possible for her not to bathe today and the pleasure of bathing not be forbidden to her forever. And a one-day abstinence from bathing is not considered affliction, for a one-day foulness is not considered foulness. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi. And both the father and the husband annul vows of affliction, it being written (Numbers 30:17): "between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter." The father is hereby being likened to the husband. Just as the husband annuls only vows of affliction, the father, too, annuls only vows of affliction. And Rambam rules that the father can annul all vows and oaths, even those which are not of affliction, viz. (Ibid. 30:6): "all of her vows and her bonds."]