Sifrei Devarim 243

ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. מלמד שפטרה הכתוב מן המיתה. מנין אף מן הקרבן? ת"ל חטא. מנין אף מן המכות? ת"ל מות. מלמד (שכל) [שמכל] עונשים שבתורה (פטורים) [פטורה]. (ומצילים אותם בנפשם. אין לי אלא זה, הרודף אחר חברו להרגו ואחר הזכר - ת"ל כן הדבר הזה). [כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן וגו'. וכי מה למדנו מרוצח מעתה? אלא הרי זה בה ללמד ונמצא למד, מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה. מה נעה"מ (=נערה המאורסה) ניתן להצילה בנפשו, אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו.

(Devarim 22:26) "But to the maiden you shall not do a thing. The maiden does not have a sin of death": We are hereby taught that Scripture exempts her from the death penalty. Whence is it derived that it exempts her from an offering as well? From "a sin (of death"). Whence is it derived that she is exempt from stripes as well? From "a sin of death," (stripes being in place of death.) We are hereby taught that she is exempt from all the punishments in the Torah. "For as a man would rise up against his neighbor and slay him, so is this thing": Now what do we learn from (this comparison to) a slayer? It (the instance of the slayer) comes (seemingly) to teach (us something about the betrothed maiden), but emerges as "learning" (something from that instance), viz.: Slayer is hereby being likened to betrothed maiden, viz.: Just as a betrothed maiden may be saved by killing the pursuer, so a man may be saved by killing the one who would slay him.

אין לי אלא אלו, הרודף אחר הזכר, אחר חייבי כריתות ומיתת ב"ד מנין? ת"ל כן הדבר]. יכול אף הרודף אחר בהמה והמחלל את השבת והעובד עכו"ם? ת"ל הזה. הזה בסקילה, ואין כל אלו בסקילה.

This tells me only of such an instance. Whence do I derive (the same for) one pursuing a male (to sodomize him) or pursuing one of those (cohabitation with whom is) punishable by kareth (cutting-off) or judicial death penalty? From "so is this thing." I might think (that the same applies to one pursuing a beast (to sodomize it) or one who would desecrate the Sabbath or serve idolatry; it is, therefore written "this (thing"). This is subject to stoning, but not the aforementioned.

כי בשדה מצאה. יכול בעיר חייבת, בשדה פטורה? ת"ל צעקה וגומר. ואם אין לה מושיעים בין בעיר בין בשדה - פטורה, ואם יש לה מושיעים, בין בעיר בין בשדה - חייבת.

(Ibid. 27) "For in the field did he find her": I might think that in the city she is liable, and in the field, not; it is, therefore, written "she cried out and no one could save her," (the implication being that if one could save her and she did not cry out she is liable.) If she has no (potential) "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is not liable; if she has "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is liable.

צעקה. פרט לשאמרה "הניחו לו", דברי ר' יהודה. [ואין מושיע לה, הא יש לה מושיע, בכל דבר שיוכל להושיע].

"she cried out": to exclude her saying "Let him be (i.e., do not kill him)." These are the words of R. Yehudah. "and no one could save her": The implication is that if he could save her, he does so in any manner that he can, (including killing him.)