Sotah, and Identical Twin Sisters

In parashat Naso, a diyuk made by Rashi:

13. and a man lie with her carnally, but it was hidden from her husband's eyes, but she was secluded [with the suspected adulterer] and there was no witness against her, and she was not seized.		יג. וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה:
with her carnally: Her intercourse disqualifies her, but her sister’s intercourse [with the husband] does not disqualify her [to her husband] (Yevamoth 95a), as in the account of two sisters who resembled each other. - [Tanchuma Naso 6] [See Levush, Nachalath Ya’akov]		אתה שכבת זרע: שכיבתה פוסלת אותה, ואין שכיבת אחותה פוסלת אותה כמעשה בשתי אחיות שהיו דומות זו לזו:

The first is a citation of Yevamot 94b-95a, as the Judaica Press translation renders above. Thus:

Let her,  however, be forbidden [to her husband] through his cohabitation with her sister, her case being similar to that of a woman whose husband went to a country beyond the sea!  — [The two cases are] not alike: His wife who, [if she had acted] presumptuously,  is forbidden to him by Pentateuchal law, has been forbidden to him, when [she acted] unwittingly, by a preventive measure of the Rabbis;  with his wife's sister, however, presumptuous [marriage with whom does] not [cause his first wife to be] forbidden [to him] by Pentateuchal law, no preventive measure has been instituted by the Rabbis in her case where [he acted] unwittingly.  Whence, however, is it deduced that she  is not forbidden?  — [From that] which was taught: With her;  only cohabitation  with her causes her to be prohibited;  cohabitation with her sister, however, does not cause her to be prohibited. [This, Scriptural text was required] since [otherwise] It might have been argued [as follows]: If where a man cohabited with [a woman forbidden by] a lighter prohibition. [the person] who caused the prohibition [itself] is forbidden [to her], how much more should [the person]  who caused the prohibition become forbidden in the case of cohabiting with [one  forbidden by] a heavier prohibition.

However, the transition to the incident with identical sisters is rather strange. That incident is given in Tanchuma as:

מעשה בשתי אחיות שהיו דומות זו לזו. והייתה אחת נשואה בעיר אחת, ואחת נשואה בעיר אחרת. בקש בעלה של אחת מהן לקנאות לה ולהשקותה מים המרים בירושלים.
הלכה לאותה העיר שהייתה אחותה נשואה שם.
אמרה לה אחותה: מה ראית לבוא לכאן? אמרה לה: בעלי מבקש להשקות אותי מים המרים.
אמרה לה אחותה: אני הולכת תחתיך ושותה.
אמרה לה: לכי.
לבשה בגדי אחותה והלכה תחתיה ושתתה מי המרים ונמצאת טהורה, וחזרה לבית אחותה. יצאת שמחה לקראתה, חבקה אותה ונשקה לה בפיה.
כיון שנשקו זו לזו, הריחה במים המרים, ומיד מתה, לקיים מה שנאמר: אין אדם שליט ברוח לכלוא את הרוח, ואין שלטון ביום המות, ואין משלחת במלחמה, ולא ימלט רשע את בעליו (קהלת ח ח): 

That there were identical twin sisters (or literally, they they were similar to one another), and one sinned. She had her sister drink to bitter Sotah waters to escape divine punishment, but when they met later, they hugged, and kissed one another on the mouth. The waters transferred and the sister who sinned but did not drink died immediately.

But what does this have to do with the husband sleeping with his wife's sister?!

Judaica Press hints at the answer, by telling us to look in these sources, but for some strange reason neglects to tell us the important thing they both say. That is, JPS notes: [See Levush, Nachalath Ya’akov]

The Levush HaOrah asserts that this is a taus sofer, and that our girsa should be different:

So too, Nachalas Yaakov writes that this is an error, from a talmid toeh, and that some people try to answer up the girsa before us, but that it is unconvincing :

Gur Aryeh as well says it is an erring student, who did not understand the meaning of ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה,  causing a scribal error.

I can understand how such an error could arise. I don't really see how it would arise from a misunderstanding of  ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה. But if we look to the Tanchuma, we find precisely the same transition. Thus, in full, Tanchuma reads:

ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע פרט לקטן ולמי שאינו איש.

שכבת זרעששכיבתה פוסלת, ואין שכיבה אחרת פוסלת.
מעשה בשתי אחיות שהיו דומות זו לזו. והייתה אחת נשואה בעיר אחת, ואחת נשואה בעיר אחרת. בקש בעלה של אחת מהן לקנאות לה ולהשקותה מים המרים בירושלים.
הלכה לאותה העיר שהייתה אחותה נשואה שם.
אמרה לה אחותה: מה ראית לבוא לכאן? אמרה לה: בעלי מבקש להשקות אותי מים המרים.
אמרה לה אחותה: אני הולכת תחתיך ושותה.
אמרה לה: לכי.
לבשה בגדי אחותה והלכה תחתיה ושתתה מי המרים ונמצאת טהורה, וחזרה לבית אחותה. יצאת שמחה לקראתה, חבקה אותה ונשקה לה בפיה.
כיון שנשקו זו לזו, הריחה במים המרים, ומיד מתה, לקיים מה שנאמר: אין אדם שליט ברוח לכלוא את הרוח, ואין שלטון ביום המות, ואין משלחת במלחמה, ולא ימלט רשע את בעליו (קהלת ח ח): 

However, it lacks the word כגון as a transition, while our Rashi has it. If one wants to argue for a sensible transition and relation between the two statements, fine. I find it unlikely. However, rather than assuming the entire irrelevant comment was inserted by an erring student, I would rather assume that Rashi, in his running commentary, repeatedly is citing Tanchuma. Indeed, looking at the surrounding comments, we find in the previous pasuk:

12. Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: Should any man's wife go astray and deal treacherously with him,

יב. דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי תִשְׂטֶה אִשְׁתּוֹ וּמָעֲלָה בוֹ מָעַל:

any man: Heb. אִישׁ אִישׁ, lit. a man, a man. [The double expression] teaches that she has been doubly unfaithful-against [the Lord, who is known as] the Man (אִישׁ) of War on high (Exod. 15:3), and against her husband (אִישָׁהּ), lit.,“her man”] below [in this world].

איש איש: ללמדך שמועלת בשתים, באיש מלחמה שלמעלה ואישה מלמטה:

This is found in Tanchuma:
דבר אחר:
איש איש ללמדך, שמועלת וכופרת בשנים:
באיש מלחמה שלמעלן,
ובאישה שלמטן. 

and then Rashi writes:

Should any man’s wife go astray: Heb. תִשְׂטֶה. Our Sages teach (Tanchuma Naso 5): Adulterers do not commit adultery unless a spirit of folly (שְׁטוּת) enters them, as it is written [here],“should go astray” [תִשְׂטֶה, can also mean to become a שׁוֹטֶה, i.e., to become “foolish”], and it is written, “One who commits adultery with a woman is devoid of sense” (Prov. 6:32) (Tanchuma Naso 5). The simple meaning of the verse is: “Should [any man’s wife] goes astray.” She deviates from modest ways, thus arousing his suspicion, as in [the verse],“turn away שְׂטֵה from it and pass” (Prov. 4:15), [and]“Let your heart not veer off יֵשְׂטְ into her ways” (Prov. 7:25).

כי תשטה אשתו: שנו רבותינו אין המנאפין נואפין עד שתכנס בהן רוח שטות, דכתיב כי תשטה, וכתוב בו נואף אשה חסר לב (משלי ו, לב). ופשוטו של מקרא כי תשטה - תט מדרכי צניעות ותחשד בעיניו, כמו שטה מעליו ועבור (שם ד, טו), אל ישט אל דרכיה לבך (שם ז, כה):

which is indeed found in Tanchuma, as noted in the translation. And then:

13. and a man lie with her carnally, but it was hidden from her husband's eyes, but she was secluded [with the suspected adulterer] and there was no witness against her, and she was not seized.		יג. וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה:
A man lie with her: This excludes a minor and a non-human [such as an animal]. — [Sotah 26b]		ושכב איש: פרט לקטן ומי שאינו איש:

Despite attributing this to Sotah 26b, it is found as well in Tanchuma:
ושכב איש אותה שכבת זרע פרט לקטן ולמי שאינו איש. 

and then the Rashi in question, where both parts are found in Tanchuma. And then:

but it was hidden from her husband’s eyes: This excludes a blind man (Sotah 27a, Sifrei Naso 1:40, Tanchuma 7). It follows that, if he saw [the adulterous act] and ignored it, the water [prescribed further in the section] will not test her. — [Sifrei Naso 1:40]

ונעלם מעיני אישה: פרט לסומא הא אם היה ראוה ומעמעם [ומעלים] אין המים בודקין אותה:

While only the former is attributed to Tanchuma, and the latter solely to Sifrei, in fact both are found in Tanchuma:
ונעלם מעיני אישה פרט לסומא.

דבר אחר:
ונעלם מעיני אישה שלא יהא בעלה רואה ומעמעם. 

The upshot of all of this is that Rashi draws heavily on Tanchuma in a running commentary and, given that this incident with the two sisters occurs juxtaposed in both Rashi and the source Tanchuma, I am somewhat reluctant to label it entirely a result of a taut sofer.

Why does this stand where it does in Tanchuma? The hook appears to be one of two things. Either sotah sister connection, even though it is in very different contexts, or else it is a further development on וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, her and not her sister, and so she and not her sister will end up paying the penalty, even if they resort to tricks.


Perhaps Rashi did include this comment, with a short reference to this famous incident, as found in the Tanchuma there. If so, it would likely be without the word כגון. Perhaps a davar acher; perhaps no transition at all. Some talmid toeh could have "improved" the text by inserting the word כגון.


Alternatively, perhaps the entire comment was inserted, by a talmid toeh who was just familiar enough with Tanchuma to bring it in as elaboration of Rashi's shorter comment. But I don't think it was wholly, or principally, the result of misunderstanding the phrase ואין שכיבת אחותה אוסרתה. Before I wholeheartedly endorse that the entire comment is an erroneous insertion, I would much prefer to see some old manuscript with the text missing.