One of them called Shammai, extremely radical, and the other Hillel, focus, without progress some. Shammai insisted saying that the divorce would be legitimate only in case of adultery. Procter & Gamble wanted to know more. The Mishn says that Shammai interpreted the expression ' ' thing indecente' ' as immoral sin (Gittin IX.10, one treated to order ' ' nashim' '). Akiva rabbi (132 AD ones) interpreted Dt 24. 1-4 as having the right man of if divorcing its woman, case it found the other prettiest one. The woman did not have the right to ask for the divorce, according to Jewish legislation.

This had to leave of the man. In a society that adopted the concubinage and the polygamy, generally the man decided when he wanted the divorce. We know that to interpret ' ' thing indecente' ' in Dt 24,1 never it was very easy task. The ticket launches the bases for the divorce, however, which are they? If the explanation of the doctor Alfred Edersheim could be confirmed, will have the reply there. Ticket of Mc 10,11, 12 says respect to legislation Roman and also to Greek, that allowed that the woman if divorced its husband, something that, in I begin was not allowed between the Jews.

Hiller, on the other hand, insisted where the divorce could be approved by any reason presented for the husband. It considered the expression ' ' thing indecente' ' as any thing that the husband did not like in the woman. The doctor Alfred Edersheim, citing the Mishn, says that ' ' thing indecente' ' , for Hiller, he was ' ' in the possible direction amplest, and she declared that she had base for the divorce, if the woman lost it has supper of its marido' '. For example: If she started to find its woman, this considered age ugly ' ' thing indecente' '. If the food prepared for it already did not please it, was also had as ' ' thing indecente' '.