Rashi comments that the Torah specifically employs the word tisteh with a sin as opposed to a samach– to describe the woman’s going astray in being unfaithful to her husband. The word tisteh is connected to the word shtus, which means foolishness. Hence, Chazal say that one who commits an act of adultery or becomes a partner in an immoral relationship has “lost his mind”. As Chazal describes it, “A spirit of foolishness has entered his mind.” They cite the pasuk in Mishlei, 6:32, “He who has illicit relations with a woman lacks a heart.”
In his commentary on Pirkei Avos, the Maharal explains that gilui arayos, immorality, by its very nature, is the antithesis of Torah. By studying Torah, one develops his mind and intellect, thereby elevating himself above his base desires. The mind distinguishes a human being from an animal. One who defers to his animalistic desires is really no different than an animal. Indeed, Chazal explain the reason that the sotah’s korban is composed of barley, as opposed to other kobanos which use flour. Barley is a food animals consume. Since the unfaithful wife acted in a manner unbecoming a human being , her sacrifice should reflect her recent act of debasement. Immorality, says Maharal, is an act of depravement which befits an animal, not a human being.
Furthermore, as Chazal reiterate a number of times, one does not act immorally unless he has been captivated by a ruach shtus, a spirit of foolishness. He acts foolishly; he loses control of his senses and acts like an animal.
The only way that one is able to prevent a breakdown of his seichal/senses is through Torah. By studying Torah and applying its lessons to one’s life, he nurtures his mind in order to strengthen it enough to control the passions of the heart and the weakness of the flesh. Torah elevates a person to the point that a ruach shtus cannot penetrate his mind and destroy his humanness.
Regarding the pasuk in Mishlei cited above, Chazl in the Talmud Sanhedrin 99b say, “He who has illicit relations with a woman lacks a heart;” this refers to one who studies Torah at irregular intervals. Maharal explains the lesson of this maxim, and its analogy to an illicit relationship, in the following manner: To study Torah without regularity undermines its dignity. It is comparable to one who has no specific mate, but, rather, dallies with a woman at his convenience. A man who has a wife has a steady mate to whom he is committed. One who merely picks his relationships according to his whims and fancy does not really have any relationship. Surely, he does not have a mate.
It is similar with regard to Torah. One who studies Torah casually, when he is in the mood or when he is inspired for a few days, does not really possess Torah. Instead, his relationship to Torah lacks integrity. He shows no commitment, he is toying with the Torah. When one takes a haphazard approach to any activity, it is generally a humiliation to the subject. It indicates that the endeavor is overshadowed by what is really essential to the individual. To permit the Torah to be eclipsed by other endeavors is to demean it. Nothing takes second place to the Torah.
