Leviticus 19:20

And if a man lie carnally with a woman, and she be an (Israelitish) handmaid (about to be) made free, and betrothed to a free man, but her redemption not altogether completed by (the payment of) the money, or the written instrument of liberation not having been given to her, let inquisition be made for judgment: she is liable to be chastised, but he is not. But it shall not be considered a matter of putting to death, because she was not altogether free. (Deut. xxii. 22-24.)

a bondmaid The Exegetes have asserted that this woman is not Jewish. Otherwise, a literal interpretation of this verse would identify her with the Israelite woman who is discussed in the passage “When a man sells his daughter to be a maid-servant…” [Exodus 21:7]. In both cases, the woman has been designated eventually to marry her master, or her master’s son, but she is not formally engaged. This is the meaning of she was not free — for she does not become completely free until she receives a proper betrothal.

subservient [Hebrew: neḥerefet] Most people render this word as “designated to”; but in my opinion, the word comes from “shame” [Hebrew: ḥerpa]. She is ashamed because she is a bondmaid, and because she is an unbetrothed virgin living in someone else’s household.

redeemed a verbal noun from the passive, hof‘al form. Neither her father nor any other relative redeemed her before she became of age.

her freedom The word is vocalized with a shuruq . Normally, a qamaṣ qaṭan would be expected, because the base noun is pronounced ḥofesh , vocalized with a ḥolem . It was conventional to write the girl a bill of manumission [and to marry her — Translator] before a fixed amount of time had elapsed, if her father sold her into slavery [Bekhorot 13a]. The Exegetes said [Karetot 11a; Giṭṭin 43b] that the verse discusses a woman who is half free and half slave; and their words are true.

AND WHOSOEVER LIETH CARNALLY WITH A WOMAN THAT IS A BONDMAID, ‘NECHEREPHETH’ FOR A MAN — “‘Destined’ for a man. I know not of a similar usage of this root [choraph] in Scripture.” This is Rashi’s language. It appears to me that it is associated with the expression, as I was in the days of ‘chorpi,’ meaning, in the days of my youth. Similarly, my heart shall not ‘yecheraph’ me so long as I live,, 27:6. meaning that I will not have the heart of a youth [who has not yet matured in wisdom]. The days of youth are called “the days of choreph” [a term which means “winter”], since the winter is at the beginning of the year, while the days of old age correspond to the summer which are the days of gathering in. Scripture, then, is stating here that she is a bondmaid, a young girl designated for a certain man, for a concubine who ministers to a man and with whom she has sexual relations, is called “his maiden,” just as every ministering person is also called [the master’s] lad. It is very common in the language of the Sages to say of a woman who has sexual relations with a man, that she is “an attendant to him.” And it is this [relationship that is here called] necherepheth, meaning that she has become a maiden [— attendant] to a man, and is known to him, called in the vernacular [i.e., in Spanish] mancipada (designated to a man). In the language of the Sages likewise we find the expression: “that slave’s girl” [assigned to him by his master]. Thus the meaning thereof is that she is not completely as his wife, but he has betrothed her and she is to him a maiden-attendant.

נחרפת, exclusively assigned to a Hebrew servant, as we know from Exodus 21,4: “if his master will give him a wife.” An expression parallel to the wordנחרפת occurs in Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשו למות, “a people that mocked at death.” It means there that Dan dedicated its life utterly. [a wife dedicates her life utterly to her husband. Ed.] Onkelos also understands the word as meaning that this woman is exclusive to the man mentioned in our verse.

לא נפדתה, on the one hand she has not been released from her vows, on the other hand she is not a true wife whose penalty would be death by strangulation.

בקורת תהיה, similar to Leviticus 13,36 לא יבקר הכהן, “the priest need not examine it.” In our verse the word there means “an indemnity,” (compensatory penalty payable,). according to Dugash) According to Menachem, the word refers to a legal examination to determine exactly what happened and to assess the guilt. If she had not been released from servitude the court will not condemn her as a wife who committed adultery.

It is a fact that most of the statutes listed appear to forbid only things which appear opposed to what we are familiar with as “laws of nature.” The prominent exception to this is the legislation involving the שפחה הנחרפת לאיש. Surely, the fact that the male partner does not become subject to the penalty of 39 strokes whereas the female partner does, appears hard to understand and to reconcile with what logic dictates. Furthermore, the fact that the male partner in the sin is required to offer a guilt offering, איל אשם, although he committed the sin knowingly, seems completely at variance with what we know about the function of such offerings.
Nonetheless, the Torah herself provides a partial answer to this unusual legislation by writing כי לא חופשה, his sin is viewed as somewhat less serious seeing that she had not been legally capable of entering a binding marriage, the requisite financial token signifying her betrothal to the man being legally meaningless as she could not “own” anything, still being enslaved to one of her former masters. His principal sin consists of desecrating the institution of marriage, a Divine institution, hence a desecration of G’d’s name when ignored. Engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman who is still partially a slave is a form of practicing promiscuity. [my words. Ed.] The scenario described by the Torah denigrates in the first instance the dignity of the active partner, the male, not that of the passive partner the female. It is most likely, that she, the “passive” partner had seduced him and is therefore deserving of the penalty decreed for her by the Torah. The deliberate nature of the sin, as far as the male is concerned, is the fact that he knowingly demeaned himself. This makes it akin to an inadvertent sin, qualifying for the guilt offering decreed.