Yevamot

that a traditional statement may be reported in my name in this world'; for R. Johanan  stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The lips of a [deceased] scholar, in whose name a traditional statement is reported in this world, move gently in the grave. Said R. Isaac b. Ze'ira, or it might be said, Simeon the Nazirite: What is the Scriptural proof of this? And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine that glideth down smoothly for my beloved, moving gently the lips of those who are asleep,  like a heated mass of grapes. As a heated mass of grapes, as soon as a man places his finger upon it, exudes  immediately so with the scholars as soon as a traditional statement is made in their name in this world, their lips move gently  in the grave. WHETHER HE IS OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS etc. A contradiction was pointed out: If at the age of twenty he  did not produce two [pubic] hairs,  they  must bring evidence that he is twenty years of age, and he [is then confirmed as a] saris;  he may neither submit to halizah nor may he perform the levirate marriage. If a woman  at the age of twenty did not produce two [pubic] hairs, they  must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age, and she [is then confirmed as a] woman who is incapable of procreation; she may neither perform halizah nor contract levirate marriage!  — Surely in connection with this Mishnah it was stated: R. Samuel b. Isaac said in the name of Rab that this  applies only to the case where [other] symptoms  of a saris also appeared on him. Said Raba: This  may also be arrived at by deduction. For it was taught, 'And he [is confirmed as a] saris',  from which this  may well be deduced. And where no symptoms of a saris developed, how long [is one regarded as a minor]?  — It was taught at the school of R. Hiyya: Until he has passed middle age. Whenever people came [with such a case]  before Raba,  he used to tell them, if [the youth was] emaciated, 'Let him first be fattened'; and if he was stout, he used to tell them, 'Let him first be made to lose weight'; for these symptoms disappear  sometimes as a result of emaciation and sometimes they disappear  as a result of stoutness. MISHNAH. A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY [THE NEAR RELATIVE] OF A WOMAN [WHOM HE HAS] OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED.  HE, HOWEVER, WHO OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED [A RELATIVE] OF HIS MARRIED WIFE, IS GUILTY.  A MAN MAY MARRY THE WOMAN WHOM HIS FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED OR THE WOMAN WHOM HIS SON HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED. R. JUDAH FORBIDS [MARRIAGE] WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAS OUTRAGED OR SEDUCED. GEMARA. Here  we learn what the Rabbis taught: 'A man who has outraged a woman  is permitted to marry her daughter; if, however, he married the woman, he is forbidden to marry her daughter'. A contradiction, however, may be pointed out: A man who is suspected of intercourse with a woman is forbidden to marry her mother, her daughter and her sister!  — This [prohibition  is only] Rabbinical. Would it be stated, however, where a Rabbinical prohibition exists, that A MAN IS PERMITTED TO MARRY even from the outset! — Our Mishnah refers only to [a marriage] after [the suspected woman's] death. Whence is this ruling deduced? — From what the Rabbis taught: In the case of all those [illicit relationships]  Scripture used the expression of 'lying',  but here  it made use of the expression of 'taking',  in order to tell you [that only when intercourse with a woman was in] the manner of 'taking'  did the Torah forbid [marriage with her relatives]. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If that is so,  then in respect of one's sister, concerning whom it is written, And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter;  is [intercourse] here also forbidden only [if it is in] the manner of 'taking',  but permitted [if it is in] the manner of 'lying'!  — The other replied: The word 'taking' is used in the Torah without being defined, [so that a text] to which 'taking' is applicable,  [signifies] 'taking'  while one to which only 'lying' is applicable,  [signifies] 'lying'. Raba stated: [That a man who] outraged a woman is permitted to marry her daughter, [is deduced] from here: It is written, The nakedness of thy son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, thou shalt not uncover;  from which it follows  that the daughter of her  son and the daughter of her  daughter may be uncovered; but it is also written in Scripture, Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; thou shalt not take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter!  How then [are these to be reconciled]? The former  refers to cases of outrage and the latter to those of marriage. Might not [the application]  be reversed? — In respect of forbidden relatives the expression kin  is written, and kinship exists only by means of marriage; but no kinship exists by means of outrage. R. JUDAH FORBIDS MARRIAGE WITH THE WOMAN WHOM ONE'S FATHER HAD OUTRAGED etc. R. Giddal stated in the name of Rab: What is R. Judah's reason? Because it is written, A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt:  the skirt which his father saw  he shall not uncover. Whence, however, is it inferred that Scripture speaks of an outraged woman? — From the preceding section of the text where it is written, Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsels father fifty shekels of silver.  And the Rabbis?  — If one text had occurred in close proximity to the other your exposition would have been justified;  now, however, that it does not occur in close proximity, the text is required for [an exposition] like that of R. Anan. For R. Anan stated in the name of Samuel that the Scriptural text  speaks of a woman awaiting the levirate decision of his father; and the meaning of  his father's skirt  is: He  shall not uncover the skirt which is designated for his father. [This prohibition,  however], might be deduced from the fact that she is his aunt!  — [The text  was necessary] to make him  guilty of the transgression of two negative commandments.  [The prohibition,  however] might be inferred from the fact [that the widow as a] sister-in-law  [is forbidden] to marry any stranger!  — [The text  was necessary] to make him guilty of the transgression of three negative commandments.  And if you prefer I might say:  After [his father's] death.