Nombres 30:16

After having heard. After he heard and endorsed, saying, “I approve,” he recanted and annuled it, even during the same day.

He must bear her transgression. He must take her place. We learn from here that one who causes another’s downfall, must bear full punishment in his place.

But if, absolving, he would absolve her one day after he had heard, there is no force in the absolution; and if he then nullify the word, her husband or her father shall bear her sin.

[BUT IF HE SHALL MAKE THEM NULL AFTER THAT HE HATH HEARD THEM], THEN HE SHALL BEAR HER INIQUITY — “he [the husband] takes her place.. Ramban presents another interpretation. Thus we learn that one who causes somebody else to commit an offense takes the place of that person with respect to all punishments [which that person would otherwise incur].” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the Sifre. 156. It would appear that this woman [broke her vow] in error or was misled, for Scripture speaks [here] of a husband who heard [his wife’s vow and did not annul it on that day], and the wife does not know about this, and after some time he “annulled” [the vow, although he in fact no longer had the power to do so], and told her that [he annulled it] in the day he heard it. Thus Scripture teaches us two things: that the husband bears her iniquity as if he had made a vow and profaned his word, and that she is totally free and not liable to any of the punishments [found elsewhere] for errors. But if the wife knows that he [her husband] did not annul it in the day he heard it, and she is versed in this law [that he only has a right to annul her vows on the day that he hears it, and not later, and nonetheless she breaks her vow], then she is the guilty one, and [since] the husband did not cause the offense, therefore his punishment is [only] like that of someone who can protest [at another person committing a sin] and does not protest.
Now Scripture mentions this case with reference to a husband [misleading his wife to think that he annulled her vow in the day he heard it, when in actual fact he “annulled” it only afterwards when he no longer had the right to], although the same law applies to a father [and his daughter’s vows], because Scripture speaks of normal circumstances, that a father usually guards himself against doing this because of his love for his daughter, whereas a husband might perhaps hate his wife and think that he will make her guilty [by misleading her to break her vow]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “Then he shall bear her iniquity, because she is under his control.” If so, the verse is speaking of a case where he forces her to do that which she has bound herself [not to do, and it is then that he shall bear her iniquity]. But it is not correct [since the same laws obviously apply when he misleads her without actually forcing her].

ואם הפר יפר אותם אחרי שמעו, and she does not even know that her husband had become aware of her vow, she must bear the burden of having violated her vow. Although, legally, her husband’s cancellation is effective, since she was not aware of this she had sinned unintentionally by violating her vow seeing she did not know that it was no longer valid.

ואם הפר יפר אותם אחרי שמעו, more than 24 hours after he had heard about it, i.e. when the period during which he could have cancelled it had expired, he can no longer change his mind;

ונשא את עונה, the same guilt as that of a person who forces someone else to commit a violation of Torah law, or who teaches Torah other than according to the halachah, thereby misleading the student.