The Rabbis Confront Sexual Violence
(א) וכן לא יעשה לְעַנּוֹת אֶת הַבְּתוּלוֹת, שֶׁהָאֻמּוֹת גָּדְרוּ עַצְמָן מִן הָעֲרָיוֹת עַל יְדֵי הַמַּבּוּל (בראשית רבה):
(1) וכן לא יעשה AND THUS IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE — viz., to do violence to a maiden, for even the heathens have trained themselves (literally, have fenced themselves round) against unchastity as a consequence of the Flood which had come upon the world as a punishment for this sin (Genesis Rabbah 80:6).

(א) וישכב אותה ויענה וישכב כדרכה ויענה שלא כדרכה (ב"ר פ ה) לשון רש"י אבל רבי אברהם אמר ויענה בעבור היותה בתולה ואין צורך כי כל ביאה באונסה תקרא ענוי וכן לא תתעמר בה תחת אשר עניתה (דברים כא יד) וכן ואת פלגשי ענו ותמת (שופטים כ ה) ויגיד הכתוב כי היתה אנוסה ולא נתרצית לנשיא הארץ לספר בשבחה

וישכב אותה ויענה. "And he lay with her" - in a natural way, "And he made her suffer" - in an unnatural way, this is Rashi's explanation. But R. Avraham says "And he made her suffer" because she was a virgin, but this is unnecessary as all rape is called suffering... And the verse explains that she was raped and did not want [to lie with] the prince of the land in order to praise her.

(א) וישכב אותה ויענה. פירש"י וישכב כדרכה ויענה שלא כדרכה. ור' אברהם כתב בשביל שהיתה בתולה קורא עינוי. והרמב"ן כתב אין צריך כל זה כי כל ביאת אונס קורא עינוי הכא הקדים שכיבה לענוי ובתמר כתיב ויענה וישכב אותה. וי"מ שדינה נתפתת תחלה אבל תמר לא נתפתת לכך הקדים ענוי לשכיבה:

(1) “He slept with her and abused her.” According to Rashi the word "he slept with her" describes normal intercourse, whereas the word "abused her" describes a more perverted method of sexual intercourse.

And Rabbi Abraham (Ibn Ezra) understands the word "and abused her" as describing the pain involved in her having intercourse as she had been a virgin.

And Nachmanides writes that there is no need for all these explanations, seeing that any intercourse in which the woman is being raped is described in the Bible as "abuse/oppression", i.e. that is the meaning of the word "and abused her". In this instance, intercourse by mutual consent appears to have preceded the rape. The opposite was the case in the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon. (Samuel II 13). There the rape is mentioned before the sexual intercourse. Some commentators suggest that Dinah had first been seduced, whereas Amnon never bothered to seduce Tamar.

(ה) וענין ותצא דינה למדך שיצאה מקושטת כשם שיצאה לאה אמה שהזכיר בה הכתוב (בראשית ל) ותצא לאה לקראתו. כלומר יצאנית בת יצאנית. והכתוב מגנה את האשה כשהיא יצאנית, הוא שכתוב (משלי ז) הומיה היא וסוררת בביתה לא ישכנו רגליה, פעם בחוץ פעם ברחובות, אבל כשהיא צנועה ועומדת בביתה הכתוב משבחה שנאמר (תהלים מה) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, וכן כתוב בשרה אמנו (בראשית יח) הנה באהל.

(5) The reason the Torah describes Dinah as ”Dinah the daughter of Leah went out,” when we all know she was Leah’s daughter is because she was trying to attract attention to herself; she had bedecked herself (Bereshit Rabbah 80,1). She proved to be a true daughter of her mother who had also attracted attention to herself by leaving her tent as we have been told in 30,16. Scripture is critical of women who leave the security and modest environment of their homes unnecessarily. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7,11-12 “She is loud and rebellious, her feet would not stay home. Now outside, now in the streets, she lurks at every corner.” David had written about a woman who stays at home. that “the true measure of a princess is found in the fact that she remains indoors.” (Psalms 45,14) When the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was, he answered: “here she is in the tent (Genesis 18,9).”

(א) ותדבק נפשו על הפך באמנון לתמר אחר ששכב אותה:

(1) ותדבק נפשו, this was the opposite of Amnon having raped Tamar whose infatuation with her turned to disgust the moment he had satisfied his biological urge. (Samuel II 13,14-16)
(כג) כִּ֤י יִהְיֶה֙ נער [נַעֲרָ֣ה] בְתוּלָ֔ה מְאֹרָשָׂ֖ה לְאִ֑ישׁ וּמְצָאָ֥הּ אִ֛ישׁ בָּעִ֖יר וְשָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּֽהּ׃ (כד) 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) (כה) וְֽאִם־בַּשָּׂדֶ֞ה יִמְצָ֣א הָאִ֗ישׁ אֶת־הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְהֶחֱזִֽיק־בָּ֥הּ הָאִ֖ישׁ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וּמֵ֗ת הָאִ֛ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־שָׁכַ֥ב עִמָּ֖הּ לְבַדּֽוֹ׃ (כו) ולנער [וְלַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] לֹא־תַעֲשֶׂ֣ה דָבָ֔ר אֵ֥ין לנער [לַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] חֵ֣טְא מָ֑וֶת כִּ֡י כַּאֲשֶׁר֩ יָק֨וּם אִ֤ישׁ עַל־רֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ וּרְצָח֣וֹ נֶ֔פֶשׁ כֵּ֖ן הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּֽה׃ (כז) כִּ֥י בַשָּׂדֶ֖ה מְצָאָ֑הּ צָעֲקָ֗ה הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָה֙] הַמְאֹ֣רָשָׂ֔ה וְאֵ֥ין מוֹשִׁ֖יעַ לָֽהּ׃ (ס) (כח) כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נער [נַעֲרָ֤ה] בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃ (כט) וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וְלֽוֹ־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל שַׁלְּחָ֖ה כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃ (ס)
(23) In the case of a virgin who is engaged to a man—if a man comes upon her in town and lies with her, (24) you shall take the two of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry for help in the town, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. Thus you will sweep away evil from your midst. (25) But if the man comes upon the engaged girl in the open country, and the man lies with her by force, only the man who lay with her shall die, (26) but you shall do nothing to the girl. The girl did not incur the death penalty, for this case is like that of a man attacking another and murdering him. (27) He came upon her in the open; though the engaged girl cried for help, there was no one to save her. (28) If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, (29) the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.
וכי תימא מעשה שהיה מפני מה לא אסרוה התם אונס הוה ואיבעית אימא כי הא דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן
And if you would say with regard to the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba: For what reason did the Sages not deem her forbidden, when clearly David committed adultery with a married woman? The Gemara answers: There it was rape, and she did not engage in intercourse willingly. And if you wish, say instead that the Sages did not deem her forbidden, as that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:
ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב תמר בת יפת תואר היתה שנאמר (שמואל ב יג, יג) ועתה דבר נא (על) המלך כי לא ימנעני ממך ואי ס"ד בת נישואין הואי אחתיה מי הוה שריא ליה אלא שמע מינה בת יפת תואר היתה (שמואל ב יג, ג) ולאמנון רע ושמו יונדב בן שמעה אחי דוד (והיה) איש חכם וגו' אמר רב יהודה אמר רב איש חכם לרשעה (שמואל ב יג, ד) ויאמר מדוע אתה ככה דל בן המלך ויאמר לו יונדב שכב על משכבך והתחל וגו' עד ועשתה לעיני את הבריה (שמואל ב יג, ט) ותקח המשרת ותצוק לפניו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שעשתה לו מיני טיגון (שמואל ב יג, טו) וישנאה אמנון שנאה גדולה מאוד מ"ט אמר ר' יצחק נימא נקשרה לו ועשאתו כרות שפכה וכי נקשרה לו איהי מאי עבדה אלא אימא קשרה לו נימא ועשאתו כרות שפכה איני והא דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (יחזקאל טז, יד) ויצא לך שם בגוים ביפיך שאין להן לבנות ישראל לא שער בית השחי ולא בית הערוה שאני תמר דבת יפת תואר הואי (שמואל ב יג, יט) ותקח תמר אפר על ראשה (ואת כתונת) הפסים אשר עליה קרעה תנא משמיה דר' יהושע בן קרחה גדר גדול גדרה תמר באותה שעה אמרו לבנות מלכים כך לבנות הדיוטות על אחת כמה וכמה אם לצנועות כך לפרוצות על אחת כמה וכמה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב באותה שעה גזרו
And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: David’s daughter Tamar was the daughter of a beautiful woman taken captive in war and was born before her mother converted. Therefore, Tamar was not considered the daughter of David according to halakha. The proof of this is in what she said to Amnon, son of David, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, speak, please, to the king, for he will not withhold me from you” (II Samuel 13:13). And if it enters your mind to say that she was the daughter of a woman David married, would David have permitted Amnon’s sister to him as a wife? Rather, learn from this verse that she was the daughter of a beautiful woman who converted after Tamar was born, so halakhically Tamar was not a daughter of David. The Gemara continues to interpret the story of Amnon and Tamar. The verse states: “And Amnon had a friend whose name was Jonadab, son of Shimeah, David’s brother, and Jonadab was a very wise man” (II Samuel 13:3). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A wise man for wickedness. The verse recounts Jonadab’s words to Amnon: “And he said to him: Why, son of the king, are you so becoming leaner from day to day…and Jonadab said to him: Lie on your bed and feign illness, and when your father comes to see you, say to him: Let my sister Tamar come, please, and give me bread, and she should dress the food in my sight…And she took the pan and poured them out before him” (II Samuel 13:4–5, 9). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means that Tamar prepared various kinds of fried [tiggun] food for Amnon. At the end of the story, the verse states: “Then Amnon hated her with exceeding, great hatred, for greater was the hatred with which he hated her than the love with which he had loved her” (II Samuel 13:15). The Gemara asks: What is the reason for Amnon’s intense hatred? Rabbi Yitzḥak says: While he raped her, a hair [nima] of hers became tied around his penis and caused him to be one whose penis has been severed. The Gemara asks: But if the hair became tied around his penis, what did she do? Why would Amnon hold this against her? Rather, say that she intentionally tied a hair around his penis during intercourse, and she made him one whose penis has been severed in order to take revenge on him, and for this he hated her. The Gemara challenges this: Is that so? But didn’t Rava interpret a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And your renown went forth among the nations about your beauty” (Ezekiel 16:14)? This teaches that Jewish women do not have armpit hair or pubic hair. Therefore, Tamar would have had no hair to injure Amnon in that way. The Gemara responds: Tamar is different, as she was the daughter of a beautiful woman, who was a gentile. The verse relates that after Amnon raped her: “And Tamar put ashes on her head and rent her garment of many colors that was on her” (II Samuel 13:19). The Sages taught in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: Tamar established a great fence at that time by way of her public outcry, as people said: If such an occurrence could happen to the daughters of kings, all the more so could it happen to the daughters of ordinary people. If such an occurrence could happen to modest women like Tamar, who resisted, all the more so could it happen to licentious women. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At that time they decreed
על הייחוד ועל הפנויה יחוד דאורייתא הוא דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית אלא לומר לך בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה אלא אימא גזרו על ייחוד דפנויה
about seclusion, that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, and about a single woman. The Gemara objects: Seclusion with a woman forbidden by familial ties is prohibited by Torah law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there an allusion to the halakha that seclusion is forbidden by Torah law? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? Why mention only the son of a mother? Rather, this verse serves to tell you that only a son may be secluded with his mother. Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. But another individual may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together. Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? Rather, say that they decreed against seclusion of a man with a single woman, to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר פליגי בה ר' יעקב בר אידי ור' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למ"ד פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות

§ Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried. The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who says that she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested? Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.

ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא
The Gemara cites another halakha derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse.
מתני׳ המפתה נותן שלשה דברים והאונס ארבעה המפתה נותן בושת ופגם וקנס מוסיף עליו אונס שנותן את הצער מה בין אונס למפתה האונס נותן את הצער והמפתה אינו נותן את הצער האונס נותן מיד והמפתה לכשיוציא האונס שותה בעציצו והמפתה אם רצה להוציא מוציא כיצד שותה בעציצו אפילו היא חיגרת אפי' היא סומא ואפילו היא מוכת שחין נמצא בה דבר ערוה או שאינה ראויה לבא בישראל אינו רשאי לקיימה שנאמר (דברים כב, יט) ולו תהיה לאשה אשה הראויה לו: גמ׳ צער דמאי אמר אבוה דשמואל צער שחבטה על גבי קרקע מתקיף לה רבי זירא אלא מעתה חבטה על גבי שיראין הכי נמי דפטור וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא ר' שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום רבי שמעון אונס אינו משלם את הצער מפני
MISHNA: The seducer gives the father of his victim three things, and the rapist gives the father four. The mishna specifies: The seducer gives the father payments for humiliation, degradation, and the fine. A rapist adds an addition to his payments, as he also gives payment for the pain. What are the differences between the halakha of a rapist and that of a seducer? The rapist gives payment for the pain, and the seducer does not give payment for the pain. The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer does not pay those payments immediately but only when he releases her. The rapist drinks from his vessel [atzitzo], i.e., marries the woman he raped, perforce, and the seducer, if he wishes to release her, he releases her. The mishna clarifies: How does the rapist drink from his vessel? Even if the woman he raped is lame, even if she is blind, and even if she is afflicted with boils, he is obligated to marry her and may not divorce her. However, if a matter of licentiousness is found in her, e.g., if she committed adultery, or if she is unfit to enter the Jewish people, e.g., if she is a mamzeret, he is not permitted to sustain her as his wife, as it is stated: “And to him she shall be as a wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), from which it is inferred that she must be a woman who is legally suitable for him. GEMARA: The mishna taught that a rapist pays for the pain that he caused. The Gemara asks: For what pain is he obligated to pay? Shmuel’s father said: It is for the pain that he caused when he slammed her onto the ground while raping her. Rabbi Zeira strongly objects to this: But if what you say is so, if he slammed her onto silk, so too is the halakha that he is exempt from payment for pain? And if you say indeed that it is so, but isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: A rapist does not pay for the pain due to the fact
שסופה להצטער תחת בעלה אמרו לו אינו דומה נבעלת באונס לנבעלת ברצון אלא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה צער של פיסוק הרגלים וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל טז, כה) ותפשקי את רגליך לכל עובר
that she will ultimately suffer the same pain during intercourse when under the authority of her husband? They said to him: One who has intercourse against her will is not comparable to one who has intercourse willingly. Apparently, the pain associated with rape is a direct result of the forced intercourse and not of some associated cause. Rather, Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: It refers to the pain of spreading her legs during intercourse. And likewise, the verse says: “And you opened your legs to every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25).
האונס נותן מיד המפתה לכשיוציא וכו': לכשיוציא אשתו היא אמר אביי אימא לכשלא יכנוס תניא נמי הכי אע"פ שאמרו המפתה נותן לכשלא יכנוס בושת ופגם נותן מיד ואחד האונס ואחד המפתה בין היא ובין אביה יכולין לעכב
§ The mishna continues: The rapist gives payment immediately, and the seducer when he releases her, etc. The Gemara asks: When he releases her? Is she his wife? He did not yet marry her, so how can the mishna use the language of divorce? Abaye said: Say that he gives payment when he opts not to marry her. If he marries her he need not pay. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: Although they said that the seducer gives the fine when he opts not to marry her, the compensation for her humiliation and degradation he gives immediately. The baraita continues: Although both the rapist and the seducer are obligated to marry their victim, both she and her father are able to prevent the marriage.
בשלמא מפותה כתיב (שמות כב, טז) אם מאן ימאן אביה אין לי אלא אביה היא עצמה מנין תלמוד לומר ימאן מכל מקום
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to a woman who was seduced, it is written: “If her father refuses [maen yemaen] to give her to him” (Exodus 22:16), and the Sages interpreted: I have only derived that her father can prevent the marriage; from where do we derive that she herself can do so? The verse states: Maen yemaen, a double verb indicating that the marriage can be prevented in any case, i.e., she too may do so.

(ז) וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ בִּמְקוֹם סַכָּנַת נְפָשׁוֹת אֵין עוֹבְרִין עַל אַחַת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו ה) "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ" אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ. וַהֲרִיגַת נֶפֶשׁ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל לְרַפְּאוֹת נֶפֶשׁ אַחֶרֶת אוֹ לְהַצִּיל אָדָם מִיַּד אַנָּס דָּבָר שֶׁהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה לוֹ הוּא שֶׁאֵין מְאַבְּדִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נֶפֶשׁ. וַעֲרָיוֹת הֻקְּשׁוּ לִנְפָשׁוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב כו) "כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה":

(7) Whence do we know that even when life is in danger, none of these prohibitive commandments may be violated? From what it is said: "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. 6.5), even though He taketh thy life.7Berakot 65b. G. And, the taking of one life in Israel to give healing to another life, or to save a man from an assassin is a thing which reason dictates not to do, for one life must not be sacrificed for another life. As for adultery, it is likened unto life itself, as it is said: "For as when a man riseth against his neighbor and slayeth him, even so is this matter" (Ibid. 22.26).

(יב) וְכֵן אָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אָדָם מִטָּתוֹ וְלִבּוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב בְּאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת. וְלֹא יִבְעל מִתּוֹךְ שִׁכְרוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂנְאָה וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ עַל כָּרְחָהּ וְהִיא יְרֵאָה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְלֹא כְּשֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מְנֻדֶּה. וְלֹא יָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ אַחַר שֶׁגָּמַר בְּלִבּוֹ לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִם עָשָׂה כֵּן הַבָּנִים אֵינָן הֲגוּנִים אֶלָּא מֵהֶן עַזֵּי פָּנִים וּמֵהֶן מוֹרְדִים וּפוֹשְׁעִים:

(12) Similarly, the sages forbade a man to have marital relations while thinking of another woman. Nor may he initiate sex while drunk, nor out of spite or hatred, nor may he rape her or initiate sex while she is afraid. Nor may they have sex while either of them are excommunicated nor after he has decided to divorce her. If [the husband] does any of those things, the children will not be proper [citizens] but brazen, rebellious [people] and criminals.

But compensation for shaming and for blemish is in accord with the [circumstances] of him who shames and of the one who suffers the shame. Deuteronomy and Exodus refer only to a fine paid to the father by a man who rapes or seduces his daughter. The rabbis made an innovation that rape is to be treated also as a case of personal injury to the girl, and not just a loss to the father. A rapist is liable to pay not only a fine, but also compensation for shaming her and her family and for any blemish that occurred. In truth he is also liable to pay for her suffering and any loss of work. These amounts, unlike the fine, are not set by the Torah. When it comes to shaming, the payment depends upon the social status of the shamer and the person who was shamed. This halakhah is true in all cases of personal injury. For more information see Ketubot 3:7.
כל אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר--בטל דבר, בטלה אהבה; ושאינה תלויה בדבר, אינה בטילה לעולם. איזו היא אהבה שהיא תלויה בדבר, זו אהבת אמנון ותמר; ושאינה תלויה בדבר, זו אהבת דויד ויהונתן.
Whenever love depends upon something and it passes, then the love passes away too. But if love does not depend upon some ulterior interest then the love will never pass away. What is an example of the love which depended upon some material advantage? That of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of the love which did not depend upon some ulterior interest? That of David and Jonathan. [Translation by Rabbi Steven Greenberg]
ראה לוט שהיו אנשי סדום שטופין בזמה בחר בסדום להיות עושה כמעשיהן, מנין שכן הוא אומר להם לאנשי סדום הנה נא לי שתי בנות וגו' בנוהג שבעולם אדם מוסר עצמו ליהרג על בנותיו ועל אשתו והורג או נהרג, וזה מוסר בנותיו להתעולל בהם
When Lot saw that the people of Sodom engaged in lust, he chose [to settle there] so he could behave like them. How do we know? Because he said to the people of Sodom: Behold, I have two daughters, etc. Ordinarily a father lays his life down to protect his daughters; this one gives them over to the mob to be sexually abused.
גילוי עריות ושפיכת דמים מנא לן דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה ענין למדנו מרוצח לנערה המאורסה
§ With regard to the concept that one must surrender his life rather than have forbidden sexual relations or shed blood through murder, from where do we derive this? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated about the rape of a betrothed woman: “For as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, even so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). One might ask: What idea did we learn about a betrothed woman from a murderer? The halakha of a betrothed woman is clear; what new point is learned by comparing it to the halakha of a murderer?
אלא ה"ז בא ללמד ונמצא למד מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילה בנפשו אף רוצח (כו') מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה יהרג ואל יעבור
Rather, this halakha about the murderer, which appears to come to teach about the betrothed woman, is found to actually be the subject of teaching. The inference is as follows: Just as with regard to the betrothed woman, permission is given to save her at the cost of the life of her attacker, so too, the murderer may be saved from committing the crime at the cost of his life, i.e., one may save the victim by killing the attacker. Another teaching is derived in the opposite direction, from the case of murder to the case of rape. Just as the murderer is subject to the halakha of let him be killed, and let him not transgress, i.e., one must even allow himself to be killed rather than take the life of another, so too, a man must surrender his life rather than engage in forbidden sexual relations with a betrothed young woman. By inference, the halakha of let him be killed, and let him not transgress, applies to all forbidden sexual relations.
אֵין דַּעַת חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה לְמִי שֶׁהוּא מַרְבֶּה בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה וְיִהְיֶה מָצוּי אֵצֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ כְּתַרְנְגוֹל. וּפָגוּם הוּא עַד מְאֹד וּמַעֲשֵׂה בּוּרִים הוּא. אֶלָּא כָּל הַמְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הֲרֵי זֶה מְשֻׁבָּח. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יְבַטֵּל עוֹנָה [אֶלָּא] מִדַּעַת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא תִּקְּנוּ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְאוּ בַּתּוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְמַעֵט בַּתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה: