וְהוֹצֵאתֶ֨ם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶ֜ם אֶל־שַׁ֣עַר ׀ הָעִ֣יר הַהִ֗וא וּסְקַלְתֶּ֨ם אֹתָ֥ם בָּאֲבָנִים֮ וָמֵתוּ֒ אֶת־הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ה] עַל־דְּבַר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־צָעֲקָ֣ה בָעִ֔יר וְאֶ֨ת־הָאִ֔ישׁ עַל־דְּבַ֥ר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּ֖ה אֶת־אֵ֣שֶׁת רֵעֵ֑הוּ וּבִֽעַרְתָּ֥ הָרָ֖ע מִקִּרְבֶּֽךָ׃ (ס)
你們就要把這二人帶到那城的城門口，用石頭把他們打死：女子是因為她雖在城裡卻沒有呼喊；男子是因為他玷辱了別人的妻子。這樣，你就把惡從你中間除掉。
Ibn Ezra
gate the seat of the village elders. Note that here Scripture terms a betrothed women his fellowman’s bride ; but we do not otherwise know the principles of betrothal, except from the words of the Tradition.
Sforno
אשר ענה את אשת רעהו, he violated her and made her unfit to continue being the wife of her betrothed. We find a similar expression in Michah 2,9 נשי עמי תגרשון מבית תענוגיה, “you drive the women of My people away from their pleasure homes.” [compare Nachmanides who explains that the woman is not considered as an unwilling helpless victim in the scenario described by the Torah here. Hence the comparison with the chapter in Michah by our author is not so baffling. Ed.]
Rabbeinu Bahya
על דבר אשר ענה, “on account of his having violated (raped) the wife of his fellow.” We would have expected the Torah to write: “on account of his having slept with his fellow’s wife.” If he had to use force to make her submit, she is a victim of violence and innocent. How then could the Torah punish her with death by stoning? The reason the Torah describes the man as having violated her, forced her, is that the Torah considers the male as if he had raped her, whereas she is considered as if she had been quite willing to engage in this encounter. Seeing the incident occurred in town where her cries for help would likely have resulted in her being rescued she is guilty of death for failing to cry out. The man, on the other hand, is treated as if he had violated her against her will instead of having merely seduced her first, and we apply the death penalty to him.
If the Torah mentions “city” and “field” as the locations where these illicit sexual unions take place, this is not to be understood literally, i.e. that only adultery by consent in the city makes the woman guilty of the death penalty, whereas she is free from guilt only if she had been raped in the field. The words “field” and “city” are illustrations of a likely scenario. If a woman was raped in the city she is most certainly not convicted, whereas if she chose to commit adultery in the field she is most certainly a candidate for the death penalty. In the final analysis both parties’ fate depends on the testimony of the witnesses.
If the Torah mentions “city” and “field” as the locations where these illicit sexual unions take place, this is not to be understood literally, i.e. that only adultery by consent in the city makes the woman guilty of the death penalty, whereas she is free from guilt only if she had been raped in the field. The words “field” and “city” are illustrations of a likely scenario. If a woman was raped in the city she is most certainly not convicted, whereas if she chose to commit adultery in the field she is most certainly a candidate for the death penalty. In the final analysis both parties’ fate depends on the testimony of the witnesses.