No community start suggestion yet.
Why does the Midrash specifically say that adultery forces the Shechinah to depart? The shiur develops the yesod that every marriage has Hashem (ה׳) as a third partner - the letters yud and heh in ish and isha represent His name dwelling between spouses. Adultery therefore requires telling the Shechinah to leave, making it uniquely severe among sins.
This shiur examines Parashat Nasso's section on Sotah, focusing on why the Midrash singles out adultery (niyuf) as a sin that causes the Shechinah to depart, while the Gemara (גמרא) makes this statement about all sins. Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg ZT"L explains that the severity of adultery stems from Hashem (ה׳)'s intimate participation in every marriage. The Gemara teaches that there are three partners in creating a child - father, mother, and Hashem - and that the letters yud and heh in the words ish and isha represent Hashem's name, symbolizing the Shechinah dwelling between spouses. The shiur explores Rashi (רש"י)'s teaching connecting the parsha of matnot kehunah (priestly gifts) to Sotah - one who withholds gifts from the kohen will eventually need the kohen for his wife's Sotah procedure. The Ohr HaChaim explains this as middah k'neged middah: the kohen creates peace between Israel and Hashem (like shalom bayis), so one who doesn't appreciate this function must learn about shalom bayis through his own marriage crisis. Rabbi Yeshaya Greenberg ZT"L develops the concept that every marriage has a national dimension - just as Israel has a husband-wife relationship with Hashem, each individual marriage participates in this cosmic relationship. Therefore, adultery is not merely a violation of human marriage, but an intrusion upon Hashem's intimate involvement in that relationship. This explains why the adulterer must 'tell the Shechinah to leave' - he is literally disrupting a three-way relationship. The shiur concludes by explaining that while all sins require ruach shtus (foolish spirit), adultery requires an especially severe form of spiritual blindness, as it involves taking from the 'King's wife' - attempting to steal from a relationship in which Hashem Himself is an intimate participant.
Sotah (general)
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 Gemara
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
How was Yitzchok comforted after Sarah's death through marrying Rivka? The Hebrew 'vayinachem' means both comfort and change of direction, revealing that healing comes through shifting focus outward. Depression and mourning are self-absorbed states; true comfort emerges when we channel our pain into caring for others.
How could Avrohom keep the entire Torah before it was given, including rabbinical laws? The key insight is that mitzvos represent eternal spiritual realities, not just historical commemorations, so Avrohom could access these truths through his genuine search. His entire 172-year journey—even his early idolatry—retroactively became service of God once he reached ultimate truth.
Why does the Gemara say Avrohom knew God from age three while the Rambam says forty, after describing his idolatrous past? The principle that baalei teshuvah transform past sins into merits explains how Avrohom's early struggles became retroactive mitzvos once he used that experience to reach other idol worshippers. Unlike Shem and Ever who lacked such background, Avrohom's difficult past became his greatest qualification for helping others.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
