93 Ἔνοχος (Mt 5, 21-22) and the Jurisprudence of Heaven as well as an (ironically) temporary stay in Gêhînom (5, 26)21 which need not be postponed to the End Time. This beings us to divorce, where the law of Moses is notoriously inadequate. (3) Divorce Admitting that uncleanness on the part of the wife is an acceptable reason for divorcing her, the arguments between Pharisees as to the other grounds for the husband to exercise his undoubted right22 are futile when one practical reason for divorce was the wife’s barrenness and another what we call wife-swapping, which non-Jews did without shame. Moreover the issue of a divorce certificate (get) could be said to be a mechanical device not touching the marriage itself (Mt 19,4-6). Dt 24,1 offers an expedient (Mt 19,7-9) available in cases where the marriage is contaminated by sin. The court of Heaven regards divorce in all other cases as potentially incidental to a μοιχεία against the divorcer himself! That court might hold the husband (or even a bet din ordering him to give a get) innocent, but Jesus does not refer to this possibility, perhaps because it would be unusual. Marriage and finance are intertwined. (4) Oath The fourth Antithesis (Mt 5,33-37), about oaths and vows (which can overlap [m. Šev. III.4]) is the most intriguing of our material. Our knowledge of the Korban problem links with it23. There are oaths enabling one to take property, and oaths to avoid liability, rash oaths and vain oaths (ibid. III.8-9). There are pentateuchal oaths and rabbinical oaths. There are oaths regarding the past, the present, and the future; and there are oaths of testimony. The complexity and volume of material is astounding. Many aspects were controversial even as late as the Mishna (ibid. III. 5-6). Learning can depend on extensions of scripture (III. 5). Tricks to avoid liability for false oaths were many, also to avoid paying for an offering or to avoid flogging. In respect of such tricks rabbis later partly agreed with Jesus. Euphemisms are pointless (IV. 13). What matters is the intention. The most fascinating part of the casuistry relates to persons suspected (āsûd) of being unfit to swear24. These coincide with the list of persons Ibid., 1043-5, 1051-2, 1057-8, 1059-60, 1063-4. Mt 5,29-30 is ambiguous. 21 Mt 19,30. SB I, 313-20. Mal 2,16 is mocked: ibid. I, 805 (2). 22 Mk 7,10-13. J.D.M. Derret, “Κορβᾶν ὅ ἐστίν δῶρον”, in Studies in the New Testament 23 I (Leiden 1977) 112-17. b. Šev 32b, 46b-47a. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah XIII.IV. 2,1, trans. J. J. Rabinowitz, 24 The Code of Maimonides. Book Thirteen. The Book of Civil Laws (New Haven 1949) 196. Billerbeck, rich elsewhere, overlooks this aspect at I, 321-5. Bonsirven has some detail at Textes, §1963.