# an omission from Leviticus 18 and 20



## JennyG (Nov 30, 2010)

This is something that always puzzled me, and today I arrived at the same passage and was puzzled all over again.
In all the categories of near relationship with which sexual relations are prohibited, why is "daughter" never mentioned?
The various degrees of kinship are spelled out in detail and the list seems at first sight comprehensive. However, that one (you would think, probably the most necessary to specify if the tendencies of modern perversion are anything to go by) is not there.
There is daughter-in-law, son's daughter, daughter's daughter and "a woman and her daughter" which I suppose does cover it, but rather as an unimportant afterthought. 
Sorry about the unsavouriness, but can anyone shed any light?


----------



## Phil D. (Nov 30, 2010)

I certainly don't have a definitive answer here, but I'll offer some random thoughts.

I do know that the Talmud argues that the omission was simply because such a prohibition was so blatently obvious (_Yebamot_ 3a). Along this same line of thought, I think you may actually be on to something when you note that the omitted relationship would seem to be one of the most likely to become an issue. This in turn would seem to go along with the common Hebrew hermeneutic of _Qal wahomer_—that is, an argument from the minor (_qal_) to the major (_homer_). That is, if something applies in a less important or obvious point, it will certainly apply in ones more major and obvious. Most cultures utilize a similar concept, such as our postulation "it goes without saying."


----------



## py3ak (Nov 30, 2010)

Just a suggestion, but it goes along with what's already been said. If you take the passage as defining the _outer limits_ of incest, naturally anything inside of those limits is also prohibited.


----------



## TimV (Nov 30, 2010)

Yes, and for proof you'd point out why even after 10 generations you couldn't marry into Lot's family, i.e. Moab and Ammon. The most famous example of father daughter sex gets the biggest punishment out there.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 30, 2010)

I suppose this verse


> Lev 18:17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, and you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness; they are relatives; it is depravity.


might be intended to speak against having (marrying?) a woman, and her already existing daughter, or even granddaughter. Are they only "close relatives" to one-another, and the reference isn't to the man? In any case, I've simply assumed in the past that this prohibition was primarily for the protection of the daughter and granddaughters.

What is being said directly concerning the woman, other than she is to be accorded the dignity of a wife, and not simply a producer of additional sex-objects? Seems to me, the case of ANY daughter IS being directly addressed here, whether she comes in as a step-daughter or as a biological descendant. Wondering why there isn't a verse dedicated only to saying, "Do not sleep with your own daughter," seems to demand something more than is necessary. And also, it has been mentioned already that the _a fortiori_ argument appears to be spread all over the text.


----------



## JennyG (Nov 30, 2010)

Phil D. said:


> I do know that the Talmud argues that the omission was simply because such a prohibition was so blatently obvious (Yebamot 3a)



that's interesting - it didn't occur to me that the point would actually have been addressed by the Talmud.
Thank you for all those helpful posts


----------

