Pisqa’ 243208H:248-249;JN2:163-164. 1. “But, do nothing to the young lady” (Dt.22:26)— This teaches that the verse releases her from [the penalty of] execution. How do I know that it also [releases her from the obligation] to bring a sacrifice?209A Purification-offering. The Teaching states: “The young lady has committed no sin worthy of the death sentence” (Dt.22:26)— [therefore, she has no obligation to make an offering in absolution of such a sin]. How do I know that the verse releases her as well from the option of a judicial lashing? The Teaching states: “No sin worthy of the death sentence” (Dt.22:26).
2. “For that matter, should a man rise up intending only to strike his kinsman, but he delivers instead a fatal wound” (Dt.22:26)— this teaches that any transgression of the Torah, committed accidentally, is released from penalty. But one may save a victim [from a murderous attack] at the cost of [the attacker’s] life. I might infer only that the rule applies to this case [of the murderer]. On what basis do I know that it also applies to someone pursuing his companion [intending] to kill him? Or to someone pursuing a male [in order to sodomize him]?210= M. San. 8:7; // T. San. 11:10. The Teaching states: “This is a comparable case” (Dt.22:26)— [in which the victim is saved at the cost of the assailant’s life].3. Is it possible to say that the same rule applies even to someone chasing a beast [for sexual gratification], or to one rushing off to desecrate the Sabbath, or to another rushing off to engage in the rites of a foreign cult?211= M. San.8:7; // T. San.11:11. The Teaching states: “This is a comparable case” (Dt.22:26)— this refers to transgressions that involve stoning. But these others do not involve stoning.
4. “For he found her in the countryside” (Dt.22:27)— is it possible to say that she would be under liability if the assault occurred in town, but in the field, she has no liability? The Teaching states: “The betrothed young lady did, indeed, cry out, but there was none to save her” (Dt.22:27)— Consider this: if someone can, indeed, save her [and she fails to cry out]— whether in town or in the countryside— she is held liable [for provoking the attack]; but if there is, in fact, none to save her [and she failed to cry out]— whether in town or in the countryside— she has no liability.212Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 13.
(דברים כב כו) וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפְּטָרָהּ הַכָּתוּב מִן הַמִּיתָה. מִנַּיִן אַף מִן הַקׇּרְבָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: חֵטְא. מִנַּיִן אַף מִן הַמַּכּוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: חֵטְא מָוֶת.
Pisqa’ 243208H:248-249;JN2:163-164.
1. “But, do nothing to the young lady” (Dt.22:26)—
This teaches that
the verse releases her from [the penalty of] execution.
How do I know that
it also [releases her from the obligation] to bring a sacrifice?209A Purification-offering.
The Teaching states:
“The young lady has committed no sin worthy of the death sentence” (Dt.22:26)—
[therefore, she has no obligation to make an offering
in absolution of such a sin].
How do I know that
the verse releases her as well from
the option of a judicial lashing?
The Teaching states:
“No sin worthy of the death sentence” (Dt.22:26).
כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל אֲנוּסִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה פְּטוּרִים וּמַצִּילִים אוֹתָם בְּנַפְשָׁם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זֶה, מִנַּיִן אַף הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵרוֹ לְהָרְגוֹ וְאַחַר הַזָּכוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה. יָכוֹל אַף הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: הַזֶּה – זֶה בִּסְקִילָה וְאֵין כָּל אֵלּוּ בִּסְקִילָה.
2. “For that matter, should a man rise up intending only to strike his kinsman,
but he delivers instead a fatal wound” (Dt.22:26)—
this teaches that
any transgression of the Torah,
committed accidentally,
is released from penalty.
But one may save a victim
[from a murderous attack]
at the cost of [the attacker’s] life.
I might infer only that the rule
applies to this case [of the murderer].
On what basis do I know that it also applies
to someone pursuing his companion [intending] to kill him?
Or to someone pursuing a male [in order to sodomize him]? 210= M. San. 8:7; // T. San. 11:10.
The Teaching states:
“This is a comparable case” (Dt.22:26)—
[in which the victim is saved at the cost of the assailant’s life].3. Is it possible to say that the same rule applies
even to someone chasing a beast [for sexual gratification],
or to one rushing off to desecrate the Sabbath,
or to another rushing off to engage in the rites of a foreign cult?211= M. San.8:7; // T. San.11:11.
The Teaching states:
“This is a comparable case” (Dt.22:26)—
this refers to transgressions
that involve stoning.
But these others do not involve stoning.
(דברים כב כז) כִּי בַשָּׂדֶה מְצָאָהּ, יָכוֹל בָּעִיר חַיֶּבֶת, בַּשָּׂדֶה תְּהֵא פְטוּרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: צָעֲקָה הַנַּעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָשָׂה וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ לָהּ. הָא אִם יֵשׁ לָהּ מוֹשִׁיעַ, בֵּין בָּעִיר בֵּין בַּשָּׂדֶה חַיֶּבֶת, וְאִם אֵין לָהּ מוֹשִׁיעַ, בֵּין בָּעִיר בֵּין בַּשָּׂדֶה פְּטוּרָה.
4. “For he found her in the countryside” (Dt.22:27)—
is it possible to say that
she would be under liability
if the assault occurred in town,
but in the field, she has no liability?
The Teaching states:
“The betrothed young lady did, indeed, cry out, but there was none to save her” (Dt.22:27)—
Consider this:
if someone can, indeed, save her
[and she fails to cry out]—
whether in town or in the countryside—
she is held liable [for provoking the attack];
but if there is, in fact, none to save her
[and she failed to cry out]—
whether in town or in the countryside—
she has no liability.212Mechilta Ishmael, neziqin, 13.
צָעֲקָה, פְּרָט לְשֶׁאָמְרָה הַנַּח לוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
“She did . . . cry out” (Dt.22:27)—
this excludes the victim who says to witnesses—leave him be:
Words of R. Judah.213// T. San. 11:11.