Our Gemara on Amud Beis (as well as 68a) references the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel, what actually happens when a husband nullifies his part of the vow, when there is a requirement that he do it jointly with the father (such as a na’arah who is an arusa).  The lomdishe question is, does the husband cut the vow precisely in half (meygaz gayyaz), that is his share of the vow is broken, or does he weaken the entirety of the vow across both shares (mikalesh kalish)?  

Think of it like this: If two people are partners in something, do each have partial domain on all of it, or full domain on half of it?

The practical outcome of this question (as explained on 68a) has to do if she vows to not eat two olive’s worth of particular food, and she violates her vow by eating two olive’s worth (see Ran ibid why two). If the entire vow is weakened, though she transgressed in one sense, she is not fully liable in the sense of a sin that would incur lashes (with witnesses, warning, and immediate transgression subsequent to the warning.) But if we say that the husband cleanly cuts out his half, there still is a fully strong, extant, remaining half to the vow, and thus she would be fully liable.

The House of Shammai holds that the vow is cleanly cut in half, and The House of Hillel holds that the vow is weakened across the board.

Metaphysically and psychologically we can understand this as two different representations of influences in marriage and family of origin.  Is the new home between husband and wife a completely different entity, and old ideas and points of reference replaced by the values and ideas that the new couple will form, or is there a blend of influence and subjectivity coming from her father’s home?  House of Shammai holds the former represented in the concept of megaz gayyaz, while House of Hillel holds the latter, represented in the concept of mikalesh kalish.

Elsewhere I have explored in depth the philosophy behind the consistency of Shammai to work in more absolute and ideal terms, and Hillel to work in more practical terms.  See Psychology of the Daf Eiruvin 13, and also how it applies to their concept of marriage, see Psychology of the Daf, Kesuvos 91.  This idea is also reflected in a teaching of the Arizal, that in the World to Come, the halakha will be in accordance with the House of Shammai (Sefas Emmes, Korach 5647). Meaning, in a post-Messianic world, people can live on this ideal plane, in accordance with the principles of the House of Shammai.

It sometimes is frustrating in marriage when a spouse remains too attached to their family of origin, and does not allow for enough emotional independence to form new ideas and values based on the joint values of both husband and wife. This is perfectly normal to some degree, and only when excessive, does it require intervention.  When it comes to emotional development, it is important to remain easy going, patient and gentle, but it is under those circumstances that optimal development occurs. You can respectfully ask your spouse if he or she is over attached or over valuing ideas from his or her family, and ask for more openness, but do not get angry or fight about it, as this usually fixates the person in the opposite position out of fear and defensiveness.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)