I believe I just did.
But to put a little more precision to it...
Mattityahu/Matthew 19:1-2
Now it came to pass, when Yeshua had finished these sayings (about forgiveness and treating others correctly), He departed from Galilee and came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.
I always like to point out the importance of reading the previous section in order to get the context. The previous vignette (the end of chapter 18) was about treating others fairly. I think that is the underlying theme of this passage, as well.
Mattityahu/Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for [just] any reason?"
I believe the test involved seeing whose side he would join. Yeshua was a populist, gaining his following from the common class. This question was one of the key issues that distinguished the Pharisaic schools of Hillel and Shammai from one another. To force Yeshua to take a side in the debate was probably intended to alienate some of his followers--especially women.
Mattityahu/Matthew 19:4-6
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made [them] at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
"So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
I suspect this initial response is understood by most of us. Marriage is a divinely appointed state. We should take a spouse, raise our children, and expect to stay with that individual for the rest of our lives. This is what defines normal social order.
This is a "safe answer". It affirms what everyone agrees with, and causes no offense to anyone. However, that wasn't really what the questioners wanted to hear.
Mattityahu/Matthew 19:7
They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"
Now, they put out the hook. This is the "trick question". Why is it a trick? Because it ignores the original intention of the passage. The rabbis were trying to discover a meaning the Devarim text was never meant to address.
Devarim/Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Premise:
"When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
This is the condition that sets the premise for what follows. It is not a commandment, but a recognition of what was already happening. Moshe never commanded divorce... ever.
Scenario 1:
[if]"when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man's [wife], the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts [it] in her hand, and sends her out of his house
Scenario 2:
"or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife
Resolution:
"[then] her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that [is] an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God is giving you [as] an inheritance.
So, we see that the source text involved has nothing to do with conditions for divorce. The rabbis had imposed a topic upon the text--a topic that had nothing to do with the original intent.
Moshe only said, "If you're going to divorce the woman, you are going to do it properly, and there are no "take-backs".
Once you've sent the woman away, there is no room for changing your mind. This serves several obvious purposes, if you think about it. It makes the choice more difficult, since you can't ever reverse a divorce. I believe this is the reaction we see in verse 10.
It also prevents cluttering of the paternity lines. Identifying the heir to the family inheritance was a cardinal value in Moshe's day.
There are probably some other values protected by this regulation, as well, but I have limited time to dwell on this.
Finally, we come to Yeshua's response to the follow-up question. Honestly, he gave them more leeway than I would have permitted. I would have told them they were twisting the text in order to create an invalid question. But he addressed the topic, anyway...
Mattityahu/Matthew 19:8,9
He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery."
Point #1
Moshe never commanded divorce. He permitted divorce because he recognized it could never be prevented. Some people just find marriage unbearable, or make it unbearable for others. But, that was not the original plan. Hashem's intention for the human race was life-long monogamous marriage.
One such unbearable condition that justified divorce was the existence of adultery. Once the marriage was already adulterated, the divorce decree (known as a "get") served merely as a formal recognition of the existing real situation.
After divorce, remarriage is perfectly fine. But if a man divorces his wife for some silliness, then he is committing adultery with his second wife.
What still remains an open question is whether we should take this assertion as a legal ruling (halakha) or merely a moral commentary.
Point #2
Take-backs are prohibited, just as Moshe mandated. Once the man had divorced his wife for serious cause, like adultery, he was done with her. There was no remarriage permitted if her second marriage failed, or if her second husband died.
This second conclusion is usually the idea that is most misunderstood, and misapplied. Because no one ever bothers to study the Torah instruction that underlies the discussion, many think this is talking about a prohibition against remarriage, in general. But that isn't what is meant at all. It is the misunderstanding of the passage that makes it controversial, when there is no need for controversy.
The original question was, "Can I divorce my wife for any cause at all, like burning my breakfast?"
The answer is, "You can divorce her for adultery, but any lesser cause would be frivolous and harmful. And if you're going to put your spouse away, then you are done, you've made your choice."