Study Sanhedrin folio 73B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
one might say that these two alone are saved at the cost of their respective attackers’ lives, because for this one it is not his natural way, and that one he degrades. But one who rapes one of the other women with whom sex are forbidden, whose natural way is to have sex with a man, and their degrad
And had God wrote only “sin,” I would say that this applies even to women who are forbidden only by a mere prohibition, that they too are to be saved even at the cost of their attackers’ lives. Therefore, God wrote “death,” to teach us that this halakha applies only to transgressions that are puni
And had God wrote only “death,” I would say that those women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to a court-imposed death penalty are indeed to be saved even at the cost of their attackers’ lives, as these are very serious sins, for which they are puni
The Talmud challenges: But let God write only “sin worthy of death” and it would no longer be necessary to specify na’ar and “na’ara.” The Talmud explains: Yes, this is indeed so; the words “sin worthy of death” suffice to include all those who are included in this halakha. But na’ar and “na’ara”
The Talmud asks: And according to the opinion of R' Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that an idol worshipper must be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life, why do I need the two terms na’ar and “na’ara”? The Talmud answers: One serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal, and