The prohibition of adultery stands at the forefront of the laws governing physical intimacy and modesty, as it threatens the very foundation of marriage and the stability of human society. Unlike other forbidden relationships that primarily constitute a violation of a Divine decree, adultery represents a dual evil: it is simultaneously a rebellion against God and a profound moral and social betrayal of another human being [ביאור שטיינזלץ, ברכת אשר, רד״צ הופמן].
The specific concept of adultery applies exclusively to relations involving a married woman. The terminology carries deep psychological and emotional undertones. On one level, it implies a turning away, capturing how a woman diverts her loyalty from her lawful husband to a stranger [רש״ר הירש]. On another level, it is rooted in the concept of wrath, reflecting the intense jealousy and fury awakened in the betrayed husband [מלבי״ם]. Furthermore, a distinction is drawn between the basic physical act of infidelity and the active, manipulative seduction used to arouse another person's forbidden desires [הכתב והקבלה].
The law specifically targets an adult man to exclude a minor who has not yet reached the age of obligation. While a minor naturally cannot be held legally culpable, this detail clarifies the status of an adult woman who sins with him. She remains fully liable for her actions and faces punishment, even though the minor is exempt from the death penalty [שפתי חכמים, ברטנורא, גור אריה].
A deliberate repetition regarding the married status of the woman serves both legal and moral purposes. Legally, it excludes scenarios where a marriage lacks formal binding validity, such as the marriages of minors or non-Jews, indicating that the strict legal framework of betrothal does not apply to them in this context [רש״י, רשב״ם, רבנו בחיי, רלב״ג, גור אריה]. On a moral and social level, this repetition shatters a dangerous misconception regarding consent. In societies where couples might mutually agree to exchange partners, one might mistakenly believe that a husband's ownership allows him to waive the prohibition. The law unequivocally establishes that adultery is a crime against the inherent sanctity of marriage itself. Even if a husband willingly consents to the act, the profound sin remains intact and carries the death penalty [תורה תמימה, ביאור יש״ר, רש״ר הירש, העמק דבר, רד״צ הופמן]. Additionally, it serves as a strict warning against retaliatory betrayal within close social circles. A man cannot avenge his own wife's infidelity by violating the marriage of his friend; every act of adultery is judged independently and demands strict justice [תולדות יצחק, צאינה וראינה].
The consequence for this profound breach of trust is a lethal sentence. The primary approach among commentators is that whenever a death penalty is mandated without specifying the method of execution, it refers to strangulation. This conclusion stems from the principle that strangulation is considered the most lenient of the court-administered executions, and without an explicit directive to apply a harsher penalty, the court must administer the most lenient option. Furthermore, this method conceptually parallels natural death at the hands of Heaven, as it ends life without leaving external marks, bruises, or bleeding on the body [מזרחי, שפתי חכמים, רלב״ג, מלבי״ם, גור אריה].
Ultimately, both partners in this betrayal bear equal responsibility and face their punishment together [ביאור שטיינזלץ]. However, the severe title of an adulteress is reserved strictly for a woman who participates out of her own free will. If she is coerced and forced into the act, she is entirely cleared of that label and is completely exempt from punishment [אבן עזרא].