פירוש על דברים 22:23

ומצאה איש בעיר [IF A DAMSEL THAT IS A VIRGIN BE BETROTHED UNTO A MAN] AND A MAN FIND HER IN THE CITY [AND LIE WITH HER] — (Because he found her outdoors) therefore he lay with her: a breach in the wall invites the thief; if she had remained at home (as becomes a chaste Jewish girl) this would not have happened to her (Sifrei Devarim 242:2-3).

The subject of the betrothed maiden²¹⁹Verses 23-27. concerns a case of witnesses seeing from afar a man taking hold of a maiden and lying with her in the city, whereupon the witnesses shouted and warned them [of the sin thereof and its death-penalty]. In the opinion of our Rabbis, both of them are liable to stoning, for the woman also is under presumption of voluntary adultery since she did not cry out at all, for, it is normal for any woman who is raped in the city to scream for help and to be saved. If, however, the witnesses saw in the field that the man grabbed her and lay with her, she is under presumption of having been raped and is therefore free of punishment. The meaning of the phrase [For he found her in the field;] she cried²²⁰Verse 27. is thus “that she probably screamed” [for even though the witnesses did not hear her cry it is presumed that she cried for help; or it may mean even if she had cried — there was none to save her,” for even if they heard that she did not cry she is free of punishment since there was none to save her. In general, if there are people to save her [and she did not cry] whether it be in the city or the field she is guilty; where there is none to save her whether it be in the city or the field she is free. Scripture speaks of the common case [i.e., that in the city there are people to save her, and in the field there are none — but the law as explained is the same in all cases].

Scripture states, and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow.²²¹Verse 24. Now the term “affliction” applies only to forcible cohabitation, and yet the same verse already declared her guilty as if she committed adultery voluntarily!²²²Verse 24 reads: Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them … the maiden, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he afflicted the wife of his fellow. Ramban asks: Since the term “affliction” applies only to forcible rape, how could she be condemned as if she had submitted voluntarily? The answer follows in the text. But the purport thereof is as follows: When we see a man take hold of a woman and lie with her we adjudge the woman to be consenting because she could have been saved from him, and we consider the man as if he is afflicting her for he did not entice her nor appeal to her to submit to him.
Now, I know not the precise meaning of this law of “crying out.” If we see a maiden being overpowered by a man and she fights him with all her strength, weeps and takes hold of his clothes or his hair to save herself from him, and she did not realize [enough] to cry out, why should she be stoned? Rather, the “crying out” of which Scripture speaks is also the common case to deduce that ordinarily [if she did not cry for help] in the city it was a seduction [for had she cried out, people would have come to her rescue] and in the field [we presume] she was forced.