Gemmorah Yevomos 2b:
אלא בתו כיון דאתיא מדרשא חביבא ליה
With regard to his daughter, since this prohibition is actually derived from a homiletical interpretation and is not explicitly stated in the Torah, it is therefore dear to the tanna. Consequently, he listed this novel case of a daughter first.
Rambam writes similarly in Sefer Hamitzvos Negative Commanments 336:
שלא לגלות ערוות הבת; ולמה לא נתפרשה בתורה, מפני שאסר בת הבת שתק מן הבת, ומפי השמועה למדו שאיסור הבת מגופי תורה, כשאר עריות.
Not to have intimate relations with one's daughter. Why was this prohibition not explicitly stated in the Torah? Since the Torah forbade [relations with] one's daughter's daughter, it did not mention [the prohibition against relations with] one's daughter. [Nevertheless, according to the oral tradition, the prohibition against [relations with] one's daughter has the status of a Torah law like the other sexual offenses [and is not considered as Rabbinic in origin].
That's weird because all other similar offenses (Arayos) ARE mentioned in the Torah.
Why would the Torah omit such a basic commandment?
No comments:
Post a Comment