וְ֠אִישׁ כִּֽי־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה שִׁכְבַת־זֶ֗רַע וְהִ֤וא שִׁפְחָה֙ נֶחֱרֶ֣פֶת לְאִ֔ישׁ וְהָפְדֵּה֙ לֹ֣א נִפְדָּ֔תָה א֥וֹ חֻפְשָׁ֖ה לֹ֣א נִתַּן־לָ֑הּ בִּקֹּ֧רֶת תִּהְיֶ֛ה לֹ֥א יוּמְת֖וּ כִּי־לֹ֥א חֻפָּֽשָׁה׃
At kapag ang isang lalaki ay sumiping sa isang babae nang may pagtatalik, at ang babaeng iyon ay isang aliping itinalaga para sa isang lalaki, at hindi pa siya lubos na natutubos, ni hindi pa siya nabibigyan ng kalayaan, magkakaroon ng pagsisiyasat; hindi sila papatayin, sapagkat hindi pa siya malaya.
Sefer HaChinukh
And the Torah further also obligated this sacrifice for one who has sexual relations with a designated maidservant; and as it is written in the Order of Kedoshim Tehiyu, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:20-21), “If a man lays with a woman, etc. and she is a maidservant designated (charufah) for a man, but has not been redeemed with redemption, etc. there shall be an investigation, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering [ etc.] a ram of guilt.” And this is from those that come whether for inadvertent transgression or volitional (Keritot 9a). It comes out that with all of them, there are five definite guilt-offerings. And so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, count in the Mishnah, such that they said (Mishnah Zevachim 5:5), “These are the guilt-offerings: 1) The guilt-offering of thefts; 2) the guilt-offering of misappropriations; 3) the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant; 4) the guilt-offering of the nazirite; 5) the guilt-offering of the metsora.” And [regarding] the undetermined guilt-offering which is counted there, its name is upon it [to show] that it is not from the group of definite guilt-offerings. And from these five, three of them come whether they are inadvertent or volitional — and they are the guilt-offering of thefts, the guilt-offering of the designated maidservant and the guilt-offering of the nazirite; and one of them only comes for inadvertent transgression and not for volitional transgression — and that is the guilt-offering of misappropriations; and [for] the fifth — which is the guilt-offering of the metsora — the expression, inadvertent and volitional, is not relevant, as we said.
Sefer HaChinukh
And nonetheless the maidservant is liable for lashes, as we cannot say about her that she is light in her [own] eyes — and that because of that, she did not guard herself from licentiousness. But still, she also is not liable for lashes unless she has intercourse in the regular fashion, is an adult and volitional. And about her is it said, “there shall be an investigation (bikoret tehiyeh)” — as our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Keritot 22a), “bikrei tehi (she shall be with verses),” meaning to say with lashes. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 22a), “She is lashed, and not he.” And because of this did the Scripture express the lashes with this language of “reading” — since they would read verses of rebuke over the one lashed while they were still lashing him, so that he understand and take instruction. And [these verses] are “And the Lord will make wondrous, etc.” (Deuteronomy 28:59).