Halakhah for Sanhedrin 151:10
אלא מה הוא לא חלקת בו בין אמו לכלתו אף היא לא תחלוק בה בין אמה לכלתה ולמ"ד שרפה חמורה מהאי קושיא לא נידונין
[This is no difficulty, for] let his own case prove it: his own daughter is forbidden by fire, yet his daughter-in-law by stoning. But [refute the analogy thus:] just as in his case, thou drawest no distinction between his mother and his daughter-in-law, so in her's [his wife's], you can draw no distinction between her mother and her daughter-in-law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, incest with the latter should he punished by burning. But as has already been proved, stoning is the proper punishment; therefore the entire analogy is impossible. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
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 a inferential comparison (gezearah shavah). As if we had only extracted it with an 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.'
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy