No community start suggestion yet.
Why does adultery appear twice in the Ten Commandments - both 'Lo Tinaf' and 'Lo Sachmod Eishes Reiecha'? The stories of Sarah with Pharaoh versus Avimelech reveal two distinct motivations: lust-driven adultery (covered by Lo Sachmod) and power-driven adultery that destroys the divine partnership in marriage (covered by Lo Tinaf).
Rabbi Zweig addresses a fundamental question about the Ten Commandments: why does adultery appear to be mentioned twice - as 'Lo Tinaf' (do not commit adultery) and 'Lo Sachmod Eishes Reiecha' (do not covet your neighbor's wife)? He also examines why Yibum (levirate marriage) involves marrying someone else's wife, and why the Nazir only abstains from wine rather than all intoxicating beverages. Through analyzing the stories of Sarah being taken by Pharaoh and later by Avimelech, Rabbi Zweig demonstrates two fundamentally different motivations behind adultery. When Pharaoh took Sarah, it was driven by lust - the Torah (תורה) emphasizes her beauty, and she is called 'ishas Avrohom' (wife of Avrohom). When Avimelech took her 25 years later, beauty is not mentioned; instead, she is called 'be'ulas ba'al' (possessed by a master), indicating this was an act of power and dominion. The names themselves reflect this distinction: Pharaoh means 'uncovered/nakedness' (representing lust), while Avimelech means 'father of power' (representing dominion). These correspond to the two commandments: Lo Sachmod represents lust-driven adultery (like Pharaoh), while Lo Tinaf represents power-driven adultery (like Avimelech). When read across the tablets, Lo Tinaf corresponds to 'Lo Yihiye Lecha Elohim Acher' (no other gods), because power-driven adultery destroys the sacred three-way partnership between husband, wife, and God that creates the Shechinah. Marriage reflects the divine image since humans were created 'male and female' in God's image. The power-driven adulterer seeks to replace the husband, thus separating the divine presence from the marriage. This explains why the Nazir specifically avoids wine rather than all alcohol - wine represents majesty and power (the drink of kings), giving one a sense of entitlement to take what belongs to others. Other intoxicants merely remove inhibitions but don't create the feeling of being entitled to possess what belongs to another. Yibum (levirate marriage) represents the permissible form of 'taking over' another's wife - it's actually taking over the deceased brother's marriage to preserve it ('lehakim shem le'achiv'). This is why kingship is often connected to Yibum in Tanach, as it requires the proper character trait of knowing when taking power is a mitzvah (מצוה) versus when it's forbidden.
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Hashkafa
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Up Next in this Series
Why does the Torah prohibit murder twice - once in Noach and again in the Ten Commandments? The dual punctuation of the Ten Commandments reveals two dimensions: murder as harming others (tam tachton) and murder as "playing God" by usurping divine authority over life and death (tam elyon). This explains why even justified executions involve an element of wrongdoing and why courts must approach life-and-death decisions with extreme gravity.
Why does 'lo tignov' in the Ten Commandments refer to kidnapping rather than ordinary theft? The shiur develops the yesod that genevah and gezeilah differ in motivation: genevah seeks financial gain while gezeilah seeks to dominate and humiliate. Kidnapping, despite appearing forcible, belongs under genevah because the kidnapper's primary goal is ransom money, not humiliating the victim.
Why do false witnesses receive harsher punishments than actual murderers, with no warning required? The distinction between emes (objective reality) and sheker (subjective self-interest) explains that false testimony's ultimate crime isn't harming individuals but perverting justice itself—transforming murder into a mitzvah through corrupted courts.
Why did Klal Yisrael need coercion at Har Sinai yet voluntary acceptance at Purim? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod: true kabbalas haTorah means recognizing that mitzvos reflect who we already are—not a choice we make, but our inner essence programmed by Hashem. At Purim, through hester panim, we internalized that doing ratzon Hashem requires no decision, only allowing ourselves to be who we truly are.
Why does the Rambam cite two different pesukim for the mitzvah of building the Beis Hamikdash? The shiur develops the yesod that the Mishkan serves two distinct purposes: a place for avodah and the seat of HaKadosh Baruch Hu's malchus. Achashverosh's party attempted to transfer that malchus to the nations, but Purim's kabbalas HaTorah b'ratzon restored our eternal claim.
Why did the Aron not take up any space in the Kodesh HaKodashim? The shiur develops a fundamental yesod: the Mishkan's ultimate purpose was not merely to house holy vessels but to create "His space"—a place where we experience being contained within Hashem's reality rather than Him existing within ours. This transforms our understanding of aliyah l'regel, the batei knesiyos, and our entire relationship with kedusha.
Why did Haman, who had wealth, power, and family beyond measure, declare all of it worthless upon merely seeing Mordechai? The shiur unpacks Esther 5:13 to reveal that Haman's statement exposes the inherent emptiness of a life connected only to the self and temporal possessions. Mordechai's willingness to sacrifice his life for values demonstrated connection to the eternal, shattering Haman's denial and forcing him to confront his own nothingness—a devastating truth that explains Jewish depression rates and points to the antidote: rootedness in Torah, prayer, and connection to something beyond the self.
