Hillel vs. Shammai The Debate as Described Outside the NT

In previous posts (link 2, 3, 4) the Hillel 'any cause', 'any matter', or 'any reason' divorce were mentioned as an intense debate between two 1st Century AD Jewish schools of thought. This debate may have been the subject of the questions presented to Jesus by the Pharisees as recorded in the Gospels.

Here are links to those extra-scriptural historical references:

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

• MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: A MAN SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE UNLESS HE HAS FOUND HER GUILTY OF SOME UNSEEMLY CONDUCT, AS IT SAYS, BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING¹ IN HER.² BETH HILLEL, HOWEVER, SAY [THAT HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF SHE HAS MERELY SPOILT HIS FOOD,³ SINCE IT SAYS,⁴ BECAUSE HE HATH FOUND SOME UNSEEMLY THING IN HER.⁵ R. AKIBA SAYS, [HE MAY DIVORCE HER] EVEN IF HE FINDS ANOTHER WOMAN MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN SHE IS, AS IT SAYS, IT COMETH TO PASS, IF SHE FIND NO FAVOUR IN HIS EYES.⁶

• It has been taught: Beth Hillel said to Beth Shammai: Does not the text distinctly say 'thing'?⁷ Beth Shammai rejoined: And does it not distinctly say 'unseemliness'? Beth Hillel replied: Had it said only 'unseemliness' without 'thing', I should have concluded that she should be sent away on account of unseemliness, but not of any [lesser] 'thing'.

Josephus:

• He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause (25) whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given

• footnote (25) from above: These words of Josephus are very like those of the Pharisees to our Savior upon this very subject, Matthew 19:3, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

Note that in Josephus the freedom to remarry is given upon the divorce. This was discussed in a previous post on the expectation for the freedom for remarriage in the 1st century AD.