כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נער [נַעֲרָ֤ה] בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
Si un homme, rencontrant une fille vierge non fiancée, la surprend et abuse d’elle et qu’ils soient pris sur le fait,
Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
(Exodus 22:15) "And if a man entice a virgin, etc.": Scripture comes to teach about an enticed girl that knass (penalty [viz. 16]) is paid for her. (But why is the verse needed?) Can it not be derived by reason, viz. "A ravished girl is in her father's jurisdiction, and an enticed girl is in her father's jurisdiction. If we have learned that knass is paid for the first (viz. Devarim 22:28-29) then knass should also be paid for the second.
Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael
If so, why is it written "who is not betrothed"? It is "extra" for purposes of comparison and towards the formulation of a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: It is written here "who is not betrothed" and there (Devarim 22:28) "who is not betrothed": Just as there, fifty, so, here, fifty. Just as here, shekalim, so, there shekalim.
Sifrei Devarim
Version 1: (See translator's note below))
Version 2:
(Devarim 22:28) "If a man find a maiden, a virgin":
(Translator's note: The Zera Avraham writes: "Anyone who looks into this section will conclude with justice that it (the transcription) is extremely corrupt and cannot be explained at all." I humbly and respectfully submit. My translation resumes after the dots.)
… "a virgin": to exclude one who has been cohabited with, whom he gives nothing. This tells me only of one who has been cohabited with. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who has lost her virginity through some accident? From (Shemoth 22:16) "the virgins" — to exclude the above. (Devarim, Ibid.) "who was not betrothed": to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced (i.e., A maiden who was betrothed and divorced receives the fine, and it belongs to her and not to her father, it being written "who was not betrothed … then he shall give to her father," the implication being that if she had been betrothed and divorced it belongs to her.) R. Akiva says: (The fine belongs to her father) even if she were widowed or divorced. And this follows, viz.: Since her betrothal money and her penalty money revert to her father, just as her betrothal money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced, so, her penalty money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced. If so, what is the intent of "who was not betrothed"? It is mufneh (free for interpretation) for purposes of comparison and identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here "who was not betrothed" and elsewhere (Shemoth 22:15) "who was not betrothed." Just as here fifty, so, there, fifty; and just as there, shekels, so, here, shekels.
Version 2:
(Devarim 22:28) "If a man find a maiden, a virgin":
(Translator's note: The Zera Avraham writes: "Anyone who looks into this section will conclude with justice that it (the transcription) is extremely corrupt and cannot be explained at all." I humbly and respectfully submit. My translation resumes after the dots.)
… "a virgin": to exclude one who has been cohabited with, whom he gives nothing. This tells me only of one who has been cohabited with. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who has lost her virginity through some accident? From (Shemoth 22:16) "the virgins" — to exclude the above. (Devarim, Ibid.) "who was not betrothed": to exclude one who was betrothed and divorced (i.e., A maiden who was betrothed and divorced receives the fine, and it belongs to her and not to her father, it being written "who was not betrothed … then he shall give to her father," the implication being that if she had been betrothed and divorced it belongs to her.) R. Akiva says: (The fine belongs to her father) even if she were widowed or divorced. And this follows, viz.: Since her betrothal money and her penalty money revert to her father, just as her betrothal money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced, so, her penalty money (reverts to him) even if she were betrothed and divorced. If so, what is the intent of "who was not betrothed"? It is mufneh (free for interpretation) for purposes of comparison and identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: It is written here "who was not betrothed" and elsewhere (Shemoth 22:15) "who was not betrothed." Just as here fifty, so, there, fifty; and just as there, shekels, so, here, shekels.