Midrasch zu Wajikra 21:9

(Fol. 52) We are taught in a Baraitha R. Maier used to say: "What does (Lev. 21, 9) Her father doth she profane, mean? This means that if, until that time he was treated like a holy man, from that time on he was treated common; if until that time he was honored, from that time on he would be disgraced. People would say: 'Cursed be such a man who begot such a daughter; cursed is he who has brought her up; cursed is he who has such an offspring.'" R. Ashi said: "In accordance with whose opinion do we act when we name a wicked person, wicked the son of a wicked, although his father was a righteous? It is in accordance with the above Tanna." We are taught in a Baraitha that Aba Jose b. Dusthai said: "Two fire cords came out from the Holy of Holies, and were divided into four: two of them entered the nostrils of one, and two the nostrils of the other, and burnt them (the two sons of Aaron)." But is it not written (Lev. 10, 2) And consumed them? [Hence something was left]. Yea — them, but not their garments.

14) (Vayikra 21:9) ("And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes herself through fornication, it is her father that she profanes; in fire shall she be burned.") "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profanes": I might think that even if she desecrated the Sabbath she should be subject to burning; it is, therefore, written "if she profanes … through fornication" — when the profanation were that of fornication, and not any other kind.

15) I might think that the penalty was burning even if she were single when she fornicated; it is, therefore, written here "her father," and there (Devarim 22:21, in respect to a betrothed maiden) "her father. Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here. — But perhaps the thrust of "her father (a Cohein)" is to exclude (from burning a maiden [even a single maiden] who fornicated with her father) — with any man (i.e., with her father who is not a Cohein)! — (This cannot be, for) "she profanes (her father)" implies (that her fornication is with) "any man." (For if it were with her father, then he would be profaning her). How, then, am I to understand "her father"? As "Just as there, the reference is to fornication within the context of marital ties, so, here."