[Footnote 4: On Jewish divorce in general see STUBBE, _Die Ehe im alten Testament_, 31, 32; FRAENKEL, _Grundlinien des mosaisch-talmud. Eherechts_, 42 ff.; MEYER, _Die Rechte der Israeliten, Athener und Römer_, II, 370 ff.; DUSCHAK, _Das mosaisch-talmud. Eherecht_, 83 ff.; MICHAELIS, _Ehegesetzen Mosis_, 358, 359; LICHTSCHEIN, _Die Ehe nach mosaisch-talmud. Auffassung_, 85 ff.; MIELZINER, _The Jewish Law of Divorce_, 115 ff.; STRIPPELMANN, _Ehescheidungsrecht_, 8 ff.; TISSOT, _Le mariage_, 44 ff.; POPP, _Ehescheidung_, 37 ff.; GLASSON, _Le mariage civil et le divorce_, 145-50; TEBBS, _Essay_, 8 ff.; GIDE, _La femme_, 56 ff.; COMBIER, _Du divorce_, 20 ff.; WOOLSEY, _Divorce and Divorce Legislation_, 10-34; THWING, _The Family_, 40-44; GEFFCKEN, _Ehescheidung vor Gratian_, 14, 16; and especially the admirable book of AMRAM, _The Jewish Law of Divorce_, 22 ff. Among controversial works see LUCKOCK, _History of Marriage_, 16 ff.; AP RICHARD, _Marriage and Divorce_, 54 ff., 62-72; BROWNE, _Marriage of Divorced Persons in Church_, 5 ff.] [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.]