[Footnote 5: Exod. 21:7-11; as interpreted by AMRAM, _The Jewish Law of Divorce_, 55 ff.; MILTON'S _Prose Works_, III, 185 ff., 322 ff.]
[Footnote 6: "When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife."--Deut. 24:1, 2. The Hebrew _Ervath Dabar_, here translated "uncleanness," literally "the nakedness of the matter," or "something unseemly," are the doubtful words. The school of Hillel, or the "broad constructionists of the Bible," held "that the husband need not assign any reason whatever for his divorce, and that he may, for instance, if he please, divorce his wife for spoiling his food." On the other hand, the school of Shammai, or the "strict constructionists," held that sexual immorality was the only scriptural ground of divorce: AMRAM, _op. cit._, 32 ff. Some writers who accept the view of the school of Shammai for the ancient law admit that, in consequence of moral degeneration, the broad constructionists were right for the days of Christ: see DUSCHAK, _op. cit._, 83 ff.; LICHTSCHEIN, _op. cit._, 86; MIELZINER, _op. cit._, 118-20. _Cf._ GEFFCKEN, _op. cit._, 74; WOOLSEY, _op. cit._, 15 ff.; TISSOT, _op. cit._, 49; TEBBS, _op. cit._, 28-30.]
[Footnote 7: Deut. 22:13-19, 28, 29: The case of the ravisher and that of the husband who falsely accuses the wife of ante-nuptial incontinence; in the latter instance he is not to "put her away all his days," which might be a trifle hard on the woman, unless indeed custom allowed her the right to free herself. See AMRAM, _op. cit._, 41 ff. By the Mishnah or oral law other restrictions are gradually imposed: _ibid._, 45.]
[Footnote 8: Before the compilation of the Mishnah the form of the get "was not yet strictly fixed, it only having been required to contain, besides the date and the names of the parties, the words 'Thou art now free for any man.'" But later custom required a more elaborate form and the "presence of at least ten persons."--MIELZINER, _The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce_, 128. Eventually the procedure in ordering, writing, and delivering the bill of divorce became complex, and it took place before a rabbi specially skilled in the law, who thus had opportunity to check hasty or unjust action through his advice or by refusing to deliver the document: see SAALSCHUETZ, _Das mosaische Recht_, 801; MIELZINER, _op. cit._, 116 ff.; DUSCHAK, _Das mosaisch-talmud. Eherecht_, 95 ff.; especially LICHTSCHEIN, _Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmud. Auffassung_, 94 ff.; and AMRAM, _op. cit._, 132-204, both giving full details as to the "get." For the form of the "get" see MEYRICK, "Marriage," _Dict. Christ. Ant._, II, 1111; AMRAM, _op. cit._, 157; LICHTSCHEIN, _op. cit._, 136; DUSCHAK, _op. cit._, 143, 144; MIELZINER, _op. cit._, 129; SELDEN, _Uxor ebraica_, III, 24: in _Opera_, IV, 797.]