Shelach: The Tzitzit Mnemonic

Inspired to talk about this by a DovBear post. There is a Rashi which derives 613 from tzitzit, thus explaining how you will see it and remember all of Hashem's commandments.

The pasuk is in Bemidbar 15:

לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

Rashi comments:

you will remember all the commandments of the Lord because the numerical value of the צִיצִית is six hundred. צ = 90 י = 10 צ = 90 י = 10 ת = 400 - =600 [Add to this the] eight threads and five knots, and we have [a total of] six hundred and thirteen [the number of commandments in the Torah]. - [Num. Rabbah 18:21]

It is indeed there in Bemidbar Rabba, among a whole bunch of other gematriot, though Bemidbar Rabba is a late midrash, possibly post-Rashi. Still, it also appears in Tanchuma, which is much earlier, with a difference that Bemidbar Rabba concludes with "five knots, two above {by the corner of the garment} and three below," while Tanchuma only has "five knots."

On the other hand, perhaps it is not really in Tanchuma. Immediately before the section which contains the statement in Tanchuma, we encounter the following statement:

מכאן ועד סוף הפרשה לא נמצא בילמדנו כתיבת יד כאשר העיד המדפיס דפוס מנטובה. אך בכל הדפוסים נמצא:

Thus it is not in the manuscript but is in all printings. See this Wikipedia page on Tanchuma for more information about Tanchuma in its various forms. Regardless, I would assume this is Rashi's source.

This is not explicitly on this pasuk of וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, but Rashi applies the midrash as a commentary to these words. It is quite possible that אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה was what prompted the finding of exactly this gematria. On the other hand, it is quote possible not. Context in both cases is another 613 count involving yirat. Citing from Tanchuma:

יראת ה' היא אוצרו (ישע' לג ו). אין בכל המדות גדול מן היראה וענוה, שנאמר, ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך (דב' י יב). יראת בגימטריא שש מאות ואחת עשרה. ותורה ומילה עמה, הרי שש מאות ושלש עשרה. ציצית, שש מאות. שמונה חוטין וחמשה קשרים, הרי שש מאות ושלש עשרה.

Thus, we might just be trying to reach 613 in general, not based on a specific pasuk and a specific spelling. On the other hand, the greater section needs to tie in to this group of pesukim somehow, and tzitzit seems the best connection.

Ramban is troubled by the fact that tzitzit is mentioned chaser. Tur gives a cute, though I would assume to many, unconvincing, that tzitzit is written chaser yud three times in the parsha, but once -- indeed, in the very pasuk under discussion, it is written לְצִיצִת. Take the lamed and distribute it amongst the three, so that they get 10 each. This rounds out the 600.

We might add that many people hold that chirik chaser and chirik malei are pronounced differently, so this is not just a spelling issue. Dr. David Segal, a very medakdek baal koreh in KGH, claims that there is no distinction in pronunciation between chirik chaser and chirik malei -- and yet that there is a distinction in terms of sheva na after chirik maleh, but on the basis of the meteg. Thus, in a case of tzitzit, one might argue that they are in fact pronounced identically.

I will pile on with a further objection. It would seem, based on Menachot, that our tzitzit are wrong. That is, there are two statements. That the coils should be no less than three, and that the sets of coils should be no less than seven and no more than thirteen. Somehow, coils and sets of coils were confused. That is why standard Ashkenazic tzitzit have four sets of coils, with the first set having seven coils and the final one having seven. With five knots, there are four sets of coils. This does not match the requirement (/recommendation) to have at least seven sets of coils, which would consist of 8 knots. (Bemidbar Rabba has gerurin rather than chutin -- perhaps it is resolvable on that grounds.) On the other hand, Tanchuma is fairly early, so we would not assume this is a midrash in error. (Back to the first hand, just how early is this segment?) This requires more investigation. Note, BTW, according to the Bemidbar Rabba girsa which mentions 2 knots above {by the kanaf} and three below {with a gap between} seems not to accord with what we do anyway.

{Update: I would add that if we wished to construct a new gematria in line with this other way of tying, it is fairly straightforward to do so. tzitzit spelled malei is 600. Add the 13 sets of coils maximum, for 613.}

I would note that while chaser is the Biblical spelling, it quite often is spelled maleh yud by commentators and in Talmud. It occurs maleh in Talmud Yerushalmi 12 times, in Talmud Bavli 60 times. It is spelled maleh in Tanchuma as well.

If we divorce the statement from the pasuk Rashi applies it to, it is a perfectly legitimate derasha or gematria. They took a Rabbinic spelling -- the Rabbinic spelling for it -- and deduced a gematria for it, such that it added up to 613. Even if we do start from the pasuk, who is to say we must rely on the pasuk's archaic spelling convention for the gematria. Need we spell sotah with a sin rather than a samech? Or sukka as chaser vav?

What is Rashi doing? He applies it specifically here. But not always does a derasha begin where Rashi eventually applies it. Still, as argued above, it fits well in here.

Even if it was not intended as such, it is a good kiyum. The pasuk said

לט וְהָיָה לָכֶם, לְצִיצִת, וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת-כָּל-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם; וְלֹא-תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם, וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-אַתֶּם זֹנִים, אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

39 And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;

and this is a way of remembering, and specifically remembering all the commandments. Perhaps we could say that Rashi is aware of the midrash and cites it as a relevant midrash, and not as explanation of the intent of (or "peshat" in) the pasuk but as a way of fulfilling it. The gematria is a mnemonic, and if the mnemonic relies on Rabbinic, rather than Biblical spelling, then so be it -- that does not matter, because since the gematria exists, it serves to remind when one looks.

(Another way of reminding, without resorting to gematria, is to simply look at the tzitzit, and treat it like a string around your finger. It will work to remind you specifically of all the commandments of Hashem because the pasuk, which you saw, said that that was its function.)

One final point. DovBear suggested the possibility that this meant Rashi had a different girsa of Chumash, to have come up with this gematria. Since it comes from a source which Rashi is merely citing (Tanchuma), it would seem that Rashi himself need not have had this girsa, and perhaps was not troubled by Ramban's question, deeming it irrelevant. What about Tanchuma? Well, we would need to look at manuscripts to determine Tanchuma's girsa. But, much earlier but still on parshat Korach, Tanchuma does not cite this pasuk. It does cite the other two occurrences of tzitzit, though.

סימן ב
ויקח קרח. מה כתיב למעלה מן הענין, דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם ועשו להם ציצת (במ' טו לח). קפץ קרח ואמר למשה, אתה אומר, ונתנו על ציצית וגו' (שם).

Thus, in the previous pasuk, it seems that Tanchuma had at least one tzitzit spelled chaser. He spells the other in the pasuk as maleh, but I would dismiss that as a scribal error, not being careful in citing it. (Whereas leaving out the yud is irregular, given every other spelling in the commentary being maleh, such that a chaser would need to be consciously based on copying the text in Chumash. Perhaps some scribe corrected the original text back to the pasuk, but if so, why not consistently?)