To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter: To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter, and this is not elucidated in the language of the Torah, that the verse would state, “The nakedness of your daughter you shall not reveal.” And because of [the following] did a verse not come about it explicitly, since there is no need for it: As since the Torah forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter which are more distant than she, there is no reason to say that she is forbidden — as it is an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer). And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned it from an inferential comparison (gezerah shava). As if we had only extracted it with an a fortiori argument, no one would have ever been judged for it — as it is established for us (Sanhedrin 76a) [that] “we do not punish from an inference”.
We have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 190) from the roots of the commandment, that which we were able about all of the sexual prohibitions more generally.
The laws of this commandment — meaning to say how did they, may their memory be blessed, learn it and from which verse — are in the Gemara Yevamot. As there (Yevamot 3a) they said, “The main prohibition of his daughter from a woman he raped, comes by interpretation (derashah), as Rava said [that] Rav Yitschak bar Avdimi said to [me], ‘This prohibition comes [by means of an inferential comparison between] “their” (hena) and “their”; it comes [by an inferential comparison of] “licentiousness” and “licentiousness”’” — meaning to say, that the verse states with the son’s daughter and the daughter’s daughter, “it is their nakedness”; like it is written at the end of the section (Leviticus 18:17), “their flesh.” Just like over there, it is explicit that her daughter is forbidden; so too here, wherein the verse prohibits the daughter of his son, the law is the same for his daughter even though the verse did not explain it — as we learn it from this inferential comparison. And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned with which death one who has intercourse with his daughter or with the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter is judged, from the strength of this inferential comparison. They, may their memory be blessed, learned it from it, after it was learned about it from another place. And from what other place was it learned about it? From that which is written (Leviticus 20:14), “And a man that takes a woman and her mother, it is licentiousness; with fire shall they be burnt, him and them.” And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 75b) [that] just like there, with a woman and her mother, about them which is written, “licentiousness,” it is with burning; so too here, with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter, about them which is written, “their flesh, it is licentiousness,” he is judged with burning. And from now, since we found that the judgment of one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter is with burning — since we have already learned the prohibition of his daughter from it by the inferential comparison of “their, their”; we can further learn from all of the other laws in it, and say that the judgment of one who has intercourse with his daughter is also with burning. And about that which is similar to this, they say in the Gemara (Yevamot 78b), “Infer from it and from it” — meaning to say, when we learn one verse from its fellow, we do not learn it for only one thing about it, but rather we learn it for all its laws from it. And [this is the case] even when those laws that are with it are not like the understanding of that verse itself, but rather learned from other verses. Nonetheless, we learn from everything that is in it — whether from the verse itself or whether it is learned from another place. And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara Keritot 5a, “Let not an inferential comparison (gezerah shava) be light in your eyes; as behold, his daughter from a woman he raped is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezerah shava — it comes by ‘their, their’; ‘licentiousness, licentiousness.’” [This is] meaning to say that we learned its prohibition and its judgment from these two inferential comparisons, as we explained. But his daughter from a woman he married is explicit in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter” — and there is no distinction whether she is his daughter and her daughter, or from another man. And this is speaking about a married woman, since it is written, “woman” (eeshah, which is also the word for wife), which implies the language of marriage (eeshut). And it is also written “you shall not take” — and taking also implies through marriage. But regarding his daughter from a woman he raped or the daughter of her son or daughter of her daughter, only, “you shall not reveal,” is written. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 336), “Observe their, may their memory be blessed, saying ‘The verse did not teach it,’ and they did not say, ‘We did not learn it’ — since all of these matters are a transmission from the messenger (Moshe), peace be upon him, who transmitted the understanding [of the Torah] to the elders. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, “body of Torah,” about this.” And [this] brought the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, to write this as a fixed major principle for himself — that only what is explicit in the verse or that which they, may their memory be blessed, said explicitly that it is from the Torah, is in the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, but not that which we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, already contradicted this with clear proofs (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 2).
We will write the place of the laws of the commandment at the end of the Order, with all of the sexual prohibitions more generally. (See Tur, Even HaEzer 21.)
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and volitionally lays with his daughter from a woman he raped, and there are witnesses, is judged with burning; without witnesses, he is liable for excision; inadvertently, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And if he laid with his daughter from a woman he married, he is liable for two sin-offerings — one on account of ‘his daughter’ and one on account of “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter.” As the liability for “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” is only with marriage of the first one, as behold it is explicitly written, “you shall not take” — whether in the place of the warning about them or whether in the place of the punishment — and the language of taking implies the language of marriage for us. And on account of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 97a) that it is from the law of the Torah that if a man raped a woman, it would have been permitted to marry her daughter [from another man], except that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, made a fence and forbade the thing. And they said (Yevamot 97a) that one who has adultery with a woman is forbidden to marry one of her seven [delineated] relatives so long as the unfaithful woman is alive, because the unfaithful woman comes to visit them and [so] he will isolate himself with her; and [since] he is familiar with her, he will come to a sin, as he will have intercourse with the sexual prohibition. And not only that, but even one who is claimed (the explanation of which is suspected) about a woman, behold this one shall not marry one of her relatives until the one who he is claimed about dies. However, if he [married] this one who is a relative of the one with which he was licentious, we do not require him to remove (divorce) her. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said about this matter (Kiddushin 12b) that anyone, who is claimed about a sexual prohibition or that a bad name went out about him with her, shall not live in the same passage with her and not be seen in the same neighborhood. [If it was] his father or his son or his brother that raped a woman or seduced her, behold he is permitted to marry her — as only by way of marriage are they forbidden. And they, may their memory be blessed, were also not stringent to make a fence for another because of the licentiousness of his relative.
שֶׁלֹּא לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוַת הַבַּת – שֶׁלֹּא לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוַת הַבַּת, וְזֹאת לֹא נִתְבָּאֲרָה בִּלְשׁוֹן הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיֹּאמַר הַכָּתוּב עֶרְוַת בִּתְּךָ לֹא תְגַלֶּה. וּמִפְּנֵי כֵן לֹא בָּא עָלֶיהָ כָּתוּב מְפֹרָשׁ לְפִי שֶׁאֵין צֹרֶךְ בּוֹ, דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁאָסְרָה הַתּוֹרָה בַּת הַבֵּן וּבַת הַבַּת שֶׁהֵן רְחוֹקוֹת מִמֶּנָּה, אֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה דְּקַל וָחֹמֶר הוּא. וְעוֹד לְמָדוּהָ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִגְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, דְּאִי מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר גְּרֵידָא הֲוָה יָלְפִינַן לָהּ לֹא הָיָה אָדָם נִדּוֹן עָלֶיהָ, דְּקַיְמָא לַן (סנהדרין עו, א) אֵין עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.
To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter: To not reveal the nakedness of the daughter, and this is not elucidated in the language of the Torah, that the verse would state, “The nakedness of your daughter you shall not reveal.” And because of [the following] did a verse not come about it explicitly, since there is no need for it: As since the Torah forbade the daughter of the son and the daughter of the daughter which are more distant than she, there is no reason to say that she is forbidden — as it is an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer). And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned it from an inferential comparison (gezerah shava). As if we had only extracted it with an a fortiori argument, no one would have ever been judged for it — as it is established for us (Sanhedrin 76a) [that] “we do not punish from an inference”.
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. כָּתַבְנוּ לְמַעְלָה (מצוה קצ) מָה שֶׁיָּכֹלְנוּ דֶּרֶךְ כְּלָל בְּכָל הָעֲרָיוֹת.
We have written above (Sefer HaChinukh 190) from the roots of the commandment, that which we were able about all of the sexual prohibitions more generally.
דִּינֵי מִצְוָה זוֹ, כְּלוֹמַר, אֵיךְ לְמָדוּהָ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה וּמֵאֵי זֶה כָּתוּב? בַּגְּמָרָא יְבָמוֹת הוּא, שֶׁאָמְרוּ שָׁם (ג, א) בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ עִקַּר אִסּוּרָא מִדְּרָשָׁא אָתְיָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא אֲמַר לֵהּ רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָתְיָא הֵנָּה הֵנָּה אָתְיָא זִמָּה זִמָּה כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁהַכָּתוּב אָמַר בְּבַת הַבֵּן וּבְבַת הַבַּת עֶרְוָתְךָ הֵנָּה, וְאָמַר בְּאִסּוּר אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ לְשׁוֹן הֵנָּה, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּסוֹף הַפָּרָשָׁה (ויקרא יח יז) שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה, מָה לְהַלָּן מְפֹרָשׂ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה בִּתָּהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּפֵרוּשׁ נִכְתְּבָה שָׁם, אַף כָּאן שֶׁאָסַר הַכָּתוּב בַּת בְּנוֹ, הוּא הַדִּין לְבִתּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵּרְשָׂהּ הַכָּתוּב, דְּגָמְרִינַן לַהּ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה זוֹ. וְעוֹד לָמְדוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִכֹּחַ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה זוֹ בְּאֵי זוֹ מִיתָה נִדּוֹן הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ אוֹ עַל בַּת בְּנוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין מִשְׁפַּט הַמִּיתָה כָּתוּב בַּמִּקְרָא שֶׁל עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, לְמָדוּהָ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּלְמַד בּוֹ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וּמֵאֵי זֶה מָקוֹם אַחֵר נִלְמַד בּוֹ? מִמָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב (שם כ יד) וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִיא בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן. וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (סנהדרין עה, ב) מָה הָתָם בְּאִשָּׁה וְאִמָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ זִמָּה בִּשְׂרֵפָה, אַף הָכָא בְּאִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִיא נִדּוֹן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וּמֵעַתָּה אַחַר שֶׁמָּצָאנוּ כִּי מִשְׁפַּט אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ בִּשְׂרֵפָה מִכֹּחַ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה זוֹ דְּזִמָּה זִמָּה, יֵשׁ לָנוּ לִלְמֹד גַּם כֵּן כִּי מִשְׁפָּט הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ בִּשְׂרֵפָה, לְפִי שֶׁכְּבָר לָמַדְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אִסּוּר עַל בִּתּוֹ בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה דְּהֵנָּה הֵנָּה, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁלָּמַדְנוּ מִמֶּנּוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד, נִלְמַד מִמֶּנּוּ עוֹד כָּל שְׁאָר הַדִּינִין שֶׁבּוֹ, וְנֹאמַר שֶׁמִּשְׁפַּט הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ גַּם כֵּן בִּשְׂרֵפָה. וְעַל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה, יֹאמְרוּ בַּגְּמָרָא (יבמות עח, ב) דּוּן מִנַּהּ וּמִנַּהּ כְּלוֹמַר, כְּשֶׁנִּלְמַד כָּתוּב אֶחָד מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, לֹא לְדָבָר אֶחָד שֶׁבּוֹ לְבַד נִלְמְדֵהוּ אֶלָּא לְכָל מִשְׁפָּטָיו נִלְמְדֵהוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאוֹתָן מִשְׁפָּטִים שֶׁבּוֹ אֵינָם כְּמַשְׁמָעוּתוֹ שֶׁל כָּתוּב בְּעַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּלְמְדֵם מִכְּתוּבִים אֲחֵרִים, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כָּל מַה שֶּׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ בֵּין מִגּוּפֵהּ דִּקְרָא בֵּין שֶׁנִּלְמַד בּוֹ מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר נִלְמַד מִמֶּנּוּ. וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה בַּגְּמָרָא כְּרֵיתוֹת (ה, א) אַל תְּהִי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ, שֶׁהֲרֵי בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ, אֶחָד מִגּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה הִיא וְלֹא לִמְּדָהּ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא בִּגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה, אָתְיָא הֵנָּה הֵנָּה אָתְיָא זִמָּה זִמָּה, כְּלוֹמַר, שֶׁבִּשְׁתֵּי גְּזֵרוֹת שָׁווֹת אֵלּוּ לָמַדְנוּ אִסּוּרָהּ וּמִשְׁפָּטָהּ, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁפֵּרַשְׁנוּ. אֲבָל בִּתּוֹ מִנְּשׂוּאָתוֹ מְפֹרָשׁ הוּא בַּמִּקְרָא מִדִּכְתִיב (שם יח יז) עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וְאֵין חִלּוּק בֵּין שֶׁהִיא בִּתּוֹ וּבִתָּהּ אוֹ מֵאִישׁ אַחֵר, וְזֶה מְדַבֵּר בִּנְשׂוּאָה מִדִּכְתִיב אִשָּׁה דְּמַשְׁמַע לְשׁוֹן אִשּׁוּת, וּכְתִיב נָמֵי (שם) לֹא תִקַּח, וְקִיחָה מַשְׁמַע גַּם כֵּן דֶּרֶךְ אִשּׁוּת, אֲבָל גַּבֵּי בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ וּבַת בְּנוֹ וּבַת בִּתּוֹ לָא כְּתִיב אֶלָּא לֹא תְּגַלֶּה, וְכָתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בספר המצוות ל"ת שלו) הַבֵּט אָמְרָם זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה לֹא לִמְּדָהּ הַכָּתוּב, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ וְלֹא לְמַדְנוּהָ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵלֶּה הָעִנְיָנִים כֻּלָּם הֵם קַבָּלָה מֵהַשָּׁלִיחַ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁמָּסַר הַפֵּרוּשׁ אֶל הַזְּקֵנִים, וְזֶה אָמְרָם עַל זֶה גּוּף תּוֹרָה. וֶהֱבִיאוֹ לָרַב זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה לִכְתֹּב דָּבָר זֶה הָעִקָּר הַקָּבוּעַ לוֹ, שֶׁאֵין בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן תַּרְיָ"ג הַמִּצְוֹת אֶלָּא מָה שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בַּכָּתוּב, אוֹ מַה שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה עָלָיו בְּפֵרוּשׁ שֶׁהוּא מִן הַתּוֹרָה, אֲבָל לֹא כָּל מָה שֶׁנִּלְמַד בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת. וּכְבָר סָתַר הָרַמְבַּ"ן זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (בשרשיו לספר המצוות שרש ב') עִנְיָן זֶה בִּרְאָיוֹת בְּרוּרוֹת.
The laws of this commandment — meaning to say how did they, may their memory be blessed, learn it and from which verse — are in the Gemara Yevamot. As there (Yevamot 3a) they said, “The main prohibition of his daughter from a woman he raped, comes by interpretation (derashah), as Rava said [that] Rav Yitschak bar Avdimi said to [me], ‘This prohibition comes [by means of an inferential comparison between] “their” (hena) and “their”; it comes [by an inferential comparison of] “licentiousness” and “licentiousness”’” — meaning to say, that the verse states with the son’s daughter and the daughter’s daughter, “it is their nakedness”; like it is written at the end of the section (Leviticus 18:17), “their flesh.” Just like over there, it is explicit that her daughter is forbidden; so too here, wherein the verse prohibits the daughter of his son, the law is the same for his daughter even though the verse did not explain it — as we learn it from this inferential comparison. And they, may their memory be blessed, also learned with which death one who has intercourse with his daughter or with the daughter of his son or the daughter of his daughter is judged, from the strength of this inferential comparison. They, may their memory be blessed, learned it from it, after it was learned about it from another place. And from what other place was it learned about it? From that which is written (Leviticus 20:14), “And a man that takes a woman and her mother, it is licentiousness; with fire shall they be burnt, him and them.” And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sanhedrin 75b) [that] just like there, with a woman and her mother, about them which is written, “licentiousness,” it is with burning; so too here, with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter, about them which is written, “their flesh, it is licentiousness,” he is judged with burning. And from now, since we found that the judgment of one who has intercourse with a woman and her daughter or the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter is with burning — since we have already learned the prohibition of his daughter from it by the inferential comparison of “their, their”; we can further learn from all of the other laws in it, and say that the judgment of one who has intercourse with his daughter is also with burning. And about that which is similar to this, they say in the Gemara (Yevamot 78b), “Infer from it and from it” — meaning to say, when we learn one verse from its fellow, we do not learn it for only one thing about it, but rather we learn it for all its laws from it. And [this is the case] even when those laws that are with it are not like the understanding of that verse itself, but rather learned from other verses. Nonetheless, we learn from everything that is in it — whether from the verse itself or whether it is learned from another place. And they, may their memory be blessed, said in the Gemara Keritot 5a, “Let not an inferential comparison (gezerah shava) be light in your eyes; as behold, his daughter from a woman he raped is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezerah shava — it comes by ‘their, their’; ‘licentiousness, licentiousness.’” [This is] meaning to say that we learned its prohibition and its judgment from these two inferential comparisons, as we explained. But his daughter from a woman he married is explicit in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 18:17), “The nakedness of a woman and her daughter” — and there is no distinction whether she is his daughter and her daughter, or from another man. And this is speaking about a married woman, since it is written, “woman” (eeshah, which is also the word for wife), which implies the language of marriage (eeshut). And it is also written “you shall not take” — and taking also implies through marriage. But regarding his daughter from a woman he raped or the daughter of her son or daughter of her daughter, only, “you shall not reveal,” is written. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 336), “Observe their, may their memory be blessed, saying ‘The verse did not teach it,’ and they did not say, ‘We did not learn it’ — since all of these matters are a transmission from the messenger (Moshe), peace be upon him, who transmitted the understanding [of the Torah] to the elders. And that is [the meaning] of their saying, “body of Torah,” about this.” And [this] brought the rabbi, may his memory be blessed, to write this as a fixed major principle for himself — that only what is explicit in the verse or that which they, may their memory be blessed, said explicitly that it is from the Torah, is in the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments, but not that which we learn from the thirteen hermeneutic principles. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, already contradicted this with clear proofs (in Sefer HaMitzvot, Shorashim 2).
דִּינֵי הַמִּצְוָה בְּסוֹף הַסֵּדֶר (מצוה ריא) נִכְתֹּב מְקוֹמָן עִם כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת בִּכְלָל [א"ה שם].
We will write the place of the laws of the commandment at the end of the Order, with all of the sexual prohibitions more generally. (See Tur, Even HaEzer 21.)
וְנוֹהֵג אִסּוּר זֶה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן. וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל זֶה וְשָׁכַב אֶת בִּתּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ בְּמֵזִיד וְיֵשׁ עֵדִים נִדּוֹן בִּשְׂרֵפָה, בְּלֹא עֵדִים חַיָּב כָּרֵת. בְּשׁוֹגֵג חַיָּב חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. וְאִם שָׁכַב אֶת בִּתּוֹ מִנְּשׂוּאָתוֹ חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת, אַחַת מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ, וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, שֶׁאֵין חִיּוּב עֶרְוַת אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ אֶלָּא בְּנִשּׂוּאֵי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּפֵרוּשׁ כָּתַב בָּהֶן לֹא תִקַּח, בֵּין בִּמְקוֹם הָאַזְהָרָה עֲלֵיהֶן בֵּין בִּמְקוֹם הָעֹנֶשׁ, וּלְשׁוֹן קִיחָה מַשְׁמַע לָן לְשׁוֹן נִשּׂוּאִין. וּמִפְּנֵי כֵן אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (יבמות צז, א) כִּי מִדִּין הַתּוֹרָה הוּא, שֶׁאִם אָנַס אָדָם אִשָּׁה מֻתָּר הָיָה לִשָּׂא בִּתָּהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁחֲכָמִים זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה גָּדְרוּ גָּדֵר וְאָסְרוּ הַדָּבָר, וְאָמְרוּ (שם) שֶׁמִּי שֶׁנָּאַף אִשָּׁה אָסוּר לִשָּׂא אַחַת מִן הַשֶּׁבַע נָשִׁים קְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ הַיְּדוּעוֹת כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה קַיֶּמֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַזּוֹנָה בָּאָה לְבַקֵּר אוֹתָן, וְהוּא מִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְלִבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ וְיָבוֹא לִידֵי עֲבֵרָה שֶׁיִּבְעֹל הָעֶרְוָה, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ נִטְעַן (פי' נחשד) עַל אִשָּׁה הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִשָּׂא אַחַת מִקְּרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ עַד שֶׁתָּמוּת זוֹ שֶׁנִּטְעַן עָלֶיהָ. וּמִכָּל מָקוֹם אִם כְּנָסָהּ לָזוֹ שֶׁקְּרוֹבָה לְאוֹתָהּ שֶׁזָּנְתָה עִמּוֹ אֵין מַצְרִיכִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָהּ. וְעוֹד אָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (קדושין יב, ב) בְּעִנְיָן זֶה, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁנִּטְעַן עַל עֶרְוָה אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא לוֹ שֵׁם רַע עִמָּהּ, לֹא יָדוּר עִמָּהּ בְּמָבוֹי אֶחָד וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה בְּאוֹתָהּ הַשְּׁכוּנָה. אָנַס אָבִיו אוֹ בְּנוֹ אוֹ אָחִיו אִשָּׁה אוֹ פִּתָּה אוֹתָהּ, הֲרֵי זוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת לוֹ לִשָּׂא אוֹתָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֶסְרוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ אִישׁוּת, וְלֹא הֶחֱמִירוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה גַּם כֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת גָּדֵר לְאַחֵר מִשּׁוּם זְנוּת שֶׁל קְרוֹבוֹ.
And this prohibition is practiced in every place and at all times. And one who transgresses it and volitionally lays with his daughter from a woman he raped, and there are witnesses, is judged with burning; without witnesses, he is liable for excision; inadvertently, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And if he laid with his daughter from a woman he married, he is liable for two sin-offerings — one on account of ‘his daughter’ and one on account of “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter.” As the liability for “the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” is only with marriage of the first one, as behold it is explicitly written, “you shall not take” — whether in the place of the warning about them or whether in the place of the punishment — and the language of taking implies the language of marriage for us. And on account of this, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Yevamot 97a) that it is from the law of the Torah that if a man raped a woman, it would have been permitted to marry her daughter [from another man], except that the Sages, may their memory be blessed, made a fence and forbade the thing. And they said (Yevamot 97a) that one who has adultery with a woman is forbidden to marry one of her seven [delineated] relatives so long as the unfaithful woman is alive, because the unfaithful woman comes to visit them and [so] he will isolate himself with her; and [since] he is familiar with her, he will come to a sin, as he will have intercourse with the sexual prohibition. And not only that, but even one who is claimed (the explanation of which is suspected) about a woman, behold this one shall not marry one of her relatives until the one who he is claimed about dies. However, if he [married] this one who is a relative of the one with which he was licentious, we do not require him to remove (divorce) her. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said about this matter (Kiddushin 12b) that anyone, who is claimed about a sexual prohibition or that a bad name went out about him with her, shall not live in the same passage with her and not be seen in the same neighborhood. [If it was] his father or his son or his brother that raped a woman or seduced her, behold he is permitted to marry her — as only by way of marriage are they forbidden. And they, may their memory be blessed, were also not stringent to make a fence for another because of the licentiousness of his relative.