This tells me only of such an instance. Whence do I derive (the same for) one pursuing a male (to sodomize him) or pursuing one of those (cohabitation with whom is) punishable by kareth (cutting-off) or judicial death penalty? From "so is this thing." I might think (that the same applies to one pursuing a beast (to sodomize it) or one who would desecrate the Sabbath or serve idolatry; it is, therefore written "this (thing"). This is subject to stoning, but not the aforementioned.
(Ibid. 27) "For in the field did he find her": I might think that in the city she is liable, and in the field, not; it is, therefore, written "she cried out and no one could save her," (the implication being that if one could save her and she did not cry out she is liable.) If she has no (potential) "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is not liable; if she has "savers," both in the city and in the field, she is liable.