Besides what is noted by both Father Reese and Ms. DeAngelis, if one really wants to nitpick (or maybe not?), the focus on the male is noticeable twice over.  Not only does it mention the man divorcing the woman rather than the woman starting proceedings -- not possible in His world, but it also omits a never married woman or widow marrying a divorced man or a divorced man marrying a never married woman or widow.  In other words, neither the never married woman nor widow nor the divorced man marrying such are included in the definition of the sin of adultery.

Because these situations are excluded, I think it reinforces the thought that the prohibition applies to men divorcing their wives in the historical time of Jesus rather than the multiplicity of combinations available in the legal proceedings of our time.