Midrash sa Deuteronomio 22:26: Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition), Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael & Sifrei Devarim

(Fol. 25) R. Jacob said in the name of R. Jochanan: "By every means, one may cure himself except by means of the tree devoted to idolatry." To what case does he refer? If we assume that he refers to a case where there is fear of danger, then why not cure by means of the tree devoted to idolatry? But if he refers to a case in which there is no fear of danger, then one is prohibited to be cured by means of any prohibited articles. Indeed, he does refer to a case where there is fear of danger, nevertheless it is forbidden [to be cured] by means of a tree devoted to idolatry. As we are taught in a Baraitha, R. Eliezer says: "Since it is said (Deu. 6, 5) [Thou Shalt love thy God] with all thy soul, wherefore is added. With all thy wealth? And since it is said, With all thy wealth, wherefore is also added, With all thy soul? This is to teach us that in case there is a man who loves himself more than his wealth, for him it is said. With all thy soul. And if there is a man who loves his wealth more than himself, for him it is said. With all thy wealth. When Rabbi came [from the land of Israel] he said, quoting R. Jochanan: "One may cure himself by every means except by means of idolatry, adultery or murder." Regarding idolatry we have spoken above, and as to adultery and murder, as we are taught in the following Baraitha, Rabbi says: (Deu. 22, 26) For as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and striketh him dead, even so is the matter [of the damsel]. What relation has the incident of a murderer to that of the betrothed damsel? Behold, this case comes [as a teacher and turns out a learner]. We compare the bethrothed damsel unto a murderer, and the murderer unto a bethrothed damsel; i.e., just as a betrothed damsel is given permission to kill [her assailant] in self-defense, so also is permission given to kill a murderer in self-defense; and as concerning murder it is said, that if a man be told to transgress the law or be killed, [slay another or else you will be slain], he must accept to be killed and not transgress, so it is also concerning a betrothed damsel;— she should rather permit herself to be slain than be ravished by a man. And whence do we learn thus concerning murder? This is common sense, as is shown by the incident of the man who appeared before Raba, and said to him: "The governor of my city has told me, 'Go and slay that man, otherwise I shall kill thee!'" Whereupon Raba said to him: "Let them kill thee, but thou must not kill others; for who tells thee that thy blood is more red than his, perhaps his blood is more red than thine."

R. Yishmael says: You say this, but perhaps the intent is (literally) to distinguish between day and night, viz.: If he killed him in the daytime, he is liable; if at night, he is not liable. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 22:26) "and to the maiden you shall do nothing; for as a man would rise up against his neighbor and murder him, so, is this thing" (raping a maiden).

(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.